SUMMARY OF
GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 27, 2006
Attending: Paul Nelson, Mark Gauthier, Mike Birmingham, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
Observing: John Bell
BUSINESS
WEST STREET SOCCER FIELDS
The Georgetown Athletic Association (GAA) needs to maintain the soccer fields at West Street. The fields are also nesting habitat for state listed endangered species of turtle. The GAA described the work to be conducted and the timeline for the work. The GCC, GAA, Park & Rec, MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species advisors and landscapers will work together to develop a short and long-term management plan for the fields.
24 SPOFFORD AVENUE – EO
The property is on Pentucket Pond. The resident obtained an Order of Conditions in June 2003 for construction of a deck and garage and repair of the driveway. Only the garage was completed. The OOC expired in June 2006. In August 2006 the owner began construction of the deck and repair of the driveway, without either renewing the original OOC or filing for a new one. The deck being added is larger than the original and has been moved to a position closer to the pond. The excavation of the driveway was conducted without siltation control, within 12’ of Pentucket Pond. The owner was asked to file a Notice of Intent for the deck, the driveway work will be overseen under an Enforcement Order..
HEARINGS
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (Cont)
This plan was originally for a duplex, the applicant changed it to a single family house due to stormwater control requirements. Discussions centered on observed flooding on site, the size of the watershed, water flow to and from the property and neighboring properties. Hearing continued pending a site walk and revised plans with more detailed topographical information.
74 JACKMAN STREET (GCC-2006-17; DEP 161-0645) NOI (New)
The original OOC for construction of the house & driveway expired in 2005. Work on the driveway – cutting trees, extending a culvert, wetland filling, widening of the driveway - was being conducted without a permit. The owner was given an Enforcement Order to cease & desist pending filing of this Notice of Intent. Property is within a Zone II Wellhead Protection Area, a very sensitive, wet area. Hearing continued pending a site walk and further information.
GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 27, 2006
Attending: Paul Nelson, Mark Gauthier, Mike Birmingham, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
Observing: John Bell
GENERAL BUSINESS
WEST STREET FIELDS
Rep: Brad Shores, Georgetown Athletic Association
Paul N, GCC – Before we start, could you tell us who does the mowing at that field?
Brad Shores, GAA – Park & Rec are in charge of that, it’s actually done by Atherton Landscaping. We had it done for the clinic this week.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We need a meeting with the landscaper on site to establish proper practices for the mowing and maintenance of that area.
Brad Shores, GAA – We’ll start with Atherton and talk to Park & Rec as well. I have been sending information to Steve, the GAA, and Park & Rec about the project at West St - because of what happened with the water department’s pipe system. The fields are now unplayable –they have so many rocks turned up when they put the new water pipe in. We tried to squeeze 2 fields in the area but where the pipes came thru has disrupted that. We want to grow grass and so will need to aerate the field & re-seed it. The Water Dept has said it’s OK to add lime. We’re testing the soil now - being done by Prescription Turf Services of Middleton. The field is largely sand pits in places in the middle of the soccer fields, we’d like to overlay that
with soil. Park & Rec say it’s OK to use that soil from the back field. The areas we need to do are near the dead center of the fields – not near the edges. In aerating we would go on the fields in the centers – not near the corners or flags. We met with Prescription Turf & Glenn (GWD). If it is approved we would not be able to touch anything with flags (marking the turtle nests). Prescription Turf understands how to work around the endangered species of turtles. Steve says we have to contact the NHES P. Dan Nein says we need to look into getting approval from the GCC under the WPA. It looks to be over 200’ from the water but that needs to be confirmed by the GCC. We also need to apply for a project review checklist (given to GCC). We gave that to Dan Nein to determine whether we can aerate the fields. The filing fee is anywhere from $300 – $1800. The project to aerate is
about $6k. We want to make sure we do it properly. The landscapers understand that they can’t go into those areas. We walked the fields with them & pointed out the areas of concern. To proceed we need approval under the WPA & from the NHESP. Can we piggyback on the water department filing for the work they did this winter?
Steve P, GCC Agent – I will give the NHESP a call. As far as the fees go, I don’t know how far the wetlands are from your working area but I can help you with that. I can’t imagine them allowing you to aerate the field during nesting – there could be thousands of nests out there. Scientists out there can advise. We call them the soccer fields but it’s turtle nesting habitat & has been for years. The front field & back area are covered in thousands of nests. The nesting season runs from mid-Aug thru mid-Sept.
Paul N, GCC – Would it work to put barriers around the soccer fields to prevent the turtles from getting into that area?
Brad Shores, GAA – The site used to be a hill that was used for fill for RT 95 & left a big sandy area. It was offered to the GAA at that time – 30 years ago. There has been no governing of the area until 1.5 years ago.
Paul N, GCC – Do you have a drop dead date for completion this yr?
Brad Shores, GAA – We accept that it probably isn’t going to happen. The fields were so bad last year that will just look normal. We would like to put in a base of seeds & grass so everything can grow, so in the Spring we have gotten 6 months of growing. It will be 30 days after our filing before the NHESP talk about it. That means it will probably be pushed back to April / May next year.
John B, GCC – Is aeration the only way?
Brad Shores, GAA – The ground is so hard you can’t grow anything.
Charles Waters, GCC – Aside from Nat Heritage, where’s our jurisdiction?
Paul N, GCC – Our jurisdiction is from the NHESP.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We enforce Natural Heritage regulations. We should use the scientists working on the turtle project on site to advise.
Paul N, GCC – Is you goal to target late fall, early spring?
Brad Shores, GAA – We’d like to start in early November to aerate & re-seed in the Spring. We were hoping to complete it before this fall’s clinic but can do it after.
Steve P, GCC Agent – If you give Natural Heritage a good plan they will be reasonable – we need to come up with a good policy. What you are proposing is destructive at the worst possible time. We need to come up with a good protocol for the work.
Brad Shores, GAA – The issue was that we couldn’t start last yr because the GWD was digging it up for new pipes. What’s our next step? Can we earmark it for November?
Paul N, GCC – Get the information you need from the NHESP. After that, find out about the WPA.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I can work with you on that.
Mike B, GCC – Where are you funds coming from? Can we waive the NOI fees?
GCC – We could waive the local fees.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We’ll wait to see what Natural Heritage says. We need a plot plan with the areas of fields.
Brad Shores, GAA – We wouldn’t do the upper field, and we’ll stay away from the corners.
Paul N, GCC – You & Steve coordinate what will happen next. You need a plot plan laying out the fields & what is being worked on.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We need to be closely involved in what’s going on down there.
24 SPOFFORD AVENUE – EO
Rep: Jim DiSabatino, Owner
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I received a stop-work order issue by Steve last week. I’m here to explain what’s going on at the site. I am building a deck & garage & replacing and existing asphalt driveway. The project started in 2003 when I came before all the boards, Building Inspector & everyone who had to be notified. The permits were all issued and the project started in August 2003. The GCC stamped the OoC on June 11, 2003.
Paul N, GCC – The project defined in the OoC in 2003 isn’t what happened on site.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – The deck was originally 10’x 24’ … 10’ from the house, 24’ from the pond. The garage was finished in April / March 2004. I addressed the roof runoff at that time – and had 3’ of gravel poured around the foundation for a dry well to allow the water off roof to percolate. There were haybales during the construction of the garage. After the garage was finished I didn’t start the deck due to money. I knew I had 3 years so I let it sit. I always intended to finish in the time allotted. In mid-June of this year I started to replace the driveway. I wasn’t aware I needed permission to do that. The Highway Inspector said I didn’t need a permit to do that. I’m not changing the
footprint, just taking up the old asphalt & putting new on. (Photos)
Paul N, GCC - The demarcation is 100’ to far edge of the asphalt. We are supposed to be involved within 100’ of a resource.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Jack Moultrie said no permit was needed from the Highway Dept.
Paul N, GCC – That’s the Highway Dept, not Conservation. You assumed he meant you didn’t need a permit from anyone?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I didn’t realize I needed separate permits from everyone.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Was that before or today?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Today.
Charles Waters, GCC – When were you in front of the GCC?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – 2003. They approved it then.
Charles Waters, GCC –You didn’t know you needed approval if the plan changed?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No. Tree roots were disrupting the driveway. (Photos showing tree & roots under driveway).
Mike B, GCC – You didn’t ask for a change in the area of asphalt then?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No, the tree wasn’t an issue then, that has only become a problem in the last year or so. When I started the deck I realized I needed to do the driveway but didn’t know I needed permission so I got someone to do the work. The footings are about 6’ apart. The original deck was approved in that location.
Steve P, GCC Agent – But not in the same position that was approved – the footprint was approved but the position is not the same.
Paul N, GCC – What does the OoC say about the placement of the deck?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Nothing. I was told by someone to add the deck at the last minute to get approval.
Charles Waters, GCC – When did you add the deck to the plan?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – It was shown extending 24’ from the stairs to the pond. The whole idea was to extend it beyond the house.
Mike B, GCC – The Commission would’ve had an issue with a deck extending past the house like that. It wasn’t represented on the plan properly for the Commission to agree. The driveway & deck are two separate components. The driveway was not in the OoC & the deck as it currently is wasn’t either.
Charles Waters, GCC – Did you know that building a deck further past would be an issue? So, you understood that the Con Comm shouldn’t have cared if you extended the deck closer to the resource?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – They asked how big it was & that was all. They were more concerned with the garage. The deck wasn’t a big issue in 2003.
Steve P, GCC Agent – What course of action should we take? We need to do what is best for the pond.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – The siltation control has been added.
Mike B, GCC – Is none of the grading / driveway in the OoC?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No. It will be moved back to the original position or taken off site. The slope of the property will be restored.
Paul N, GCC – You’re not changing the topology?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No. I lost 6-7 trees on that part of property during the tornado. Trees were uprooted & left my yard with gaps in the slope – since 1991. I would like to level it off to be smooth.
Paul N, GCC – Where?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – To the right of the driveway up to the house by the underground electric cable.
Steve P, GCC Agent – There are also stumps of trees cut down.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Those stumps we found under the driveway. They were probably ground down.
Charles Waters, GCC – How long have you lived there?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I moved in in April 1990. We had the tornado 1.5 yrs later. There was a change in the size of the deck, when I started building it my girlfriend suggested extending the deck across the back of the house, remove the window & have doors onto the deck. I didn’t think there’d be a problem – it was just 2 extra footings and some extra framing.
Charles Waters, GCC – Just 2 more footings than the original plan?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Yes. (Shows plan of original proposal).
Steve P, GCC Agent – This footprint isn’t to scale – I don’t know how it was viewed in the original meeting.
Mark G, GCC – It was 10’x 24’ on the original plan?
Charles Waters, GCC – The original placement of the deck wasn’t beyond the face of the house?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – That’s how it was drawn but not how it measured.
Charles Waters, GCC – Who put it there? It’s your plan & you’re responsible for its inaccuracies. If you didn’t measure accurately that’s your error. It’s a significant error.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – It didn’t seem to be an issue then.
Paul N, GCC – They just looked at the drawing.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – The garage was the big issue then.
Mike B, GCC – We need to see the minutes from those meetings.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Haybales were not installed for the latest deck – there was no silt fence. The OoC clearly said the project should have siltation control.
Paul N, GCC - Did you read that?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I apologize for not having them up. I didn’t get it done in time. I took care of it the next day after seeing Steve.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I was there the next day when I dropped off the EO. They are now enclosing the whole area.
Paul N, GCC – The bottom line is that what you’re doing now is not related in any way to the OoC. Your enhancements were not approved.
Mark G, GCC – Do you have a building permit for the bigger deck that is shown here?
Jim Disabatino, Owner - Just for the 10’x24’ deck. I don’t have one for the bigger part. The Building Inspector says I will have to wait for the Con Comm decision.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The Building Inspector is fine with the structure and code even though it is larger.
Paul N, GCC – The deck is a minor part of it. There is the grading and leveling in addition.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I’m not filling just leveling.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It’s just 4-5 wheelbarrow loads.
Paul N, GCC – That wasn’t in the OoC.
Charles Waters, GCC – The OoC has expired we need a new NOI & a site walk.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I’m asking for an extension on the OoC. Jack Moultrie said no permit was needed – you say within 100’ I do need one from you. I want you to give permission.
Charles Waters, GCC – You were not permitted in the first place for what you’re doing. It’s not reasonable to give permission for you to go forward. Stabilization is one thing, this is another.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – That involves the complete driveway.
Charles Waters, GCC – Can we make an EO to get the soil stabilized?
Steve P, GCC Agent – There is a small cliff overhanging the pond. I wouldn’t recommend finishing the deck until we know how to go forward.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I waited 3 years to get the money after building the garage.
Steve P, GCC Agent – File an NOI asap. We will hold a site walk asap.
Charles Waters, GCC – I’d like to try to expedite this as much as possible to help the homeowner.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – So I have 3 main issues: the silt fence, the driveway without permission, and the extra piece of deck. I hope we can come to a quick resolution but I don’t see that happening.
Charles Waters, GCC – We don’t either. We are expediting the filing & a site visit so we can come back here to talk about the significant issues we see. We don’t have an accurate plan to work with here now.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No one objected to it then.
Charles Waters, GCC – We will look at the minutes & do our homework.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I have an EO to be signed to lock in the cease & desist order. I will work with the applicant to get the NOI filing done asap. The slope can be stabilized quickly with a bulldozer on site.
Paul N, GCC – Will the soil go offsite?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Yes. I put it there because the other site had the materials for the deck sitting there.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I can get you the NOI next week.
Paul N, GCC – Site walk on Aug 12 at 9 am.
HEARINGS
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (Cont)
Reps: John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering; Mitch Kroner, Attorney
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The last time we were here there were two main things to address – the septic approval & the drainage issues. We don’t have septic approval yet. I talked to the BOH & there was a clerical change they needed. I got the plans back to them last week. There is no problem with the system at all, no design changes are required by them. The plan I showed you last time raised questions about drainage onto the other lot – this new plan addresses that & other things. It’s now a single family house, not a duplex. The new location puts the edge of the house 101’ from the wetland. We have left the swale on both sides and the roof infiltrators even though they are not necessary for a single family house. We also rotated the septic field – the elevations take all water from this site & the next site and it all goes to the swale. We rotated the septic system so it’s farther back from the lot line. There is more swale on the 96’ contour line so any
water hits the swale & has to go down & around. We didn’t change the elevations for the septic – just rotated it.
Mike B, GCC – This is a SFH with 6 bedrooms?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Yes, either 6 bedrooms or 6 rooms.
Steve P, GCC Agent – What is the elevation of the house? Has the top sill changed?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – It was 104’ on the previous plan & it’s still there.
Charles Waters, GCC – When did you submit these new plans?
Steve P, GCC Agent – 4 hours ago.
Mike B, GCC – Shall we continue til we have more time?
Steve P, GCC Agent – I still have questions about the watershed. You have added more topo points from the last plan but still not enough. There is a large amount of water from off property – there is twice the amount of water coming onto this property but is not being addressed.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This is an existing SFH lot.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I have significant concerns re. flooding. The BVW line is at 94.5’ to 94.7’ to the finger between the two septic systems – that’s only a difference of 1 foot.
Mitch Kroner, Attorney – Are you going to use that flood as a standard? Are you going to take aerial photographs of the whole town and use them for every case that comes before you?
Mark G, GCC – Yes. MVPC spent $40k on aerial photographs of this whole area. We have them and we intend to use them to deal with the significant flooding issues this town is facing.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Given enough rain every site will flood. The 100-yr storm is the design standard for the whole country & state. This site does not flood during a 100-yr storm. I hope Georgetown is not going to sidestep state and federal guidelines. That storm was in excess of 100-yr. There must be a standard. It has always has been the 100-yr storm. This was not under water for 100-yr storm. The FEMA flood maps don’t show this flooding in a 100-yr storm.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Have you calculated the watershed?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – No. It’s an existing SFH lot.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It’s a reasonable piece of information for the Commission to request.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – It will cost my client a lot of money. It is not reasonable. It will have to be applied for every & all projects. It’s appropriate for a sub-division but this is a SFH.
Mark G, GCC – The FEMA map shows other areas as flooding that we know don’t flood – as proven by the Mothers Day storm & brought to the Con Comm as evidence by your firm, Atlantic Engineering. We look at the FEMA maps & but they often don’t apply – they can be inaccurate. They can be inaccurate in either direction.
Steve P, GCC Agent – FEMA says the FEMA maps are only useful for large areas – for smaller areas like 1 acre they encourage commissions to gather their own information.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This FEMA area was in existence before Silver Mine Road was there. It was part of a large watershed.
Steve P, GCC Agent – FEMA acknowledges that there are separate smaller areas that are not shown & should be investigated.
Paul N, GCC – Developers keep building more impervious structures – some areas that didn’t flood before do now. I clearly saw water running the other day from the street through the back lot SW corner into the area you have marked as the septic.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It was suggested “no water will enter the abutter property”. It was suggested that a rock wall would keep the water out – not a concrete wall. The area to the front left of the house will collect water.
Paul N, GCC – We asked for a more accurate topo plan.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – I don’t remember that.
Paul N, GCC – It’s in the minutes.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – There is a section of this area that already flows in this direction. The roof is not an increase in impervious surface as it goes into infiltrators. The water to the front will go into the swale – the top of the swale is at 98’ – is deeper than that. It’s not shown here because we’re showing 2’ elevations. I can add more detail of the swale areas.
Paul N, GCC – If water does flow from North St – you could add a detention pond to collect it.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – A SFH doesn’t require that.
Paul N, GCC – Even so, you wouldn’t want to allow water to flood your septic.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The septic is at 100’
Paul N, GCC – Where will the water go then? I saw lots of ponding in the area where you show your leach field.
Mike B, GCC – He’s saying he’s building it up and it will go into the detention area.
Paul N, GCC – When we walked out there there are swales going parallel to North Street.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Water does flow in that direction. I re-designed it so it flows better so it doesn’t go onto the next property. If the whole area floods, as it did in May, over a 100-yr storm, it will back up all over for that short period of time.
Paul N, GCC – But the water in the wetland wasn’t contiguous with the flooded area.
Mark G, GCC – It was completely filled all the way up.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This area is 95’, 94’, 93’ … it couldn’t be separate from the other areas.
Paul N, GCC – The berm runs N/S 40’ from the property line demarking left from right.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Yes, to the 96’ contour line here. We could pull it back but then we’d be working in the 75’ – 50’ buffer zone.
Mike B, GCC – Where are we displacing the water & the septic? What’s the capacity of the area in normal circumstances?
Paul N, GCC – It’s pretty flat, 94’ is as low as gets.
Steve P, GCC Agent – That’s only 1’ different from the septic systems. It’s a large area.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This is 4’ above the water table by models.
Mike B, GCC – Doesn’t it have the capacity to hold that water? We definitely need a continuation so we can see this new plan.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We need a picture of the fence near Silver Mine.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – That’s the wall – I added that to the plan.
Mark G, GCC – The fence was in water during that storm. The water came up the fence. It’s not deep, it looks like it is but it’s not a huge deep bowl.. It’s a large surface area that captures a lot of water.
Steve P, GCC Agent – This is definitely an ILSF under local regulations. This area cuts both leaching fields in half. It’s not on the FEMA map – that’s why we have an ILSF definition. This 96’ topo line could be the boundary of that area.
Paul N, GCC – We can’t project if we don’t understand the drainage characteristics of the area around it.
Mark G, GCC – The street nearby is pushing water on to this lot too.
Mitch Kroner, Attorney – You can’t penalize him because this is the last lot to be developed.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – When the lot next door was developed it put the water onto this lot. We aren’t sending water anywhere other than on this lot. The May storm water didn’t go onto next lot.
Mark G, GCC – I agree. I saw no water on the other lot during that storm. There was none on the whole front portion of the property. But water was still standing on the site a week after the storm. The other side of Silver Mine was flooded to an extreme level. The front part was dry.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The water table has been at a high level for a period of 20 years. On June 10 the storm water level was even higher. Sites flooded in June but not May as the water level came up.
Mark G, GCC – We should all go there as a group & look at specific spots.
Paul N, GCC – Topo isn’t dramatic so it’s hard to see what’s going on. The flood gave an insight as to how water will flow.
Mark G, GCC – We can walk it with the pictures for reference – so we can see how high & where the water was. There was a small area without water, the rest was very wet.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Another site walk is fine but the pictures relating to a specific storm event might be inaccurate.
MOTION to conduct site walk on Aug 19 at 8: am – Tom / Mike / Unam
MOTION to continue the hearing to 8:00 on Aug 24 – Mike / Tom / Unam
.
25 BAILEY LANE
No reps
MOTION to conduct site walk on Aug 12 at 10 am – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to continue the hearing to Aug 24 at 8:30 – Mike / Tom / Unam
74 JACKMAN STREET (GCC-2006-17; DEP 161-0645) NOI (New)
Reps: Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering; Russell Beegan & Paul Beegan, Owners
Steve P, GCC Agent – I received a call regarding unpermitted work on a driveway. On a site visit I discovered trees had been cut & soil removed. It was a cease & desist situation. Looking back into the files, the applicant didn’t have an OoC for the work on an approved site plan. The OoC had expired & was not extended – the OoC was dead. The applicant came in to explain. An NOI was filed.
Paul N, GCC – Was there another OoC for this?
Steve P, GCC Agent – Yes, for a new house. There was a lot of impact & replication. The whole driveway was within the buffer zones. This is not just a new NOI. This is asking permission after the fact. Some is from the original OoC, some goes beyond the work that was permitted at that time. Whatever is new should be considered a violation. Some work was done on an expired OoC. The road is wider than the original, trees were removed & shouldn’t have been, the culvert extended. Applicant did build the house.
Paul N, GCC – So there is an OoC but no as-built. How close is work reflected in the original OOC?
Steve P, GCC Agent – The driveway is wider, filling occurred, they extended the culvert, the driveway was specifically for 10’ but this seems wider. This is a Zone II Wellhead Protection Area, a very sensitive, wet area. I didn’t receive information on the replication area. In the original they kept the impact < 5000 sf. It probably is now over 5k. A lot of replication area is grassy & grown over – we didn’t get yearly updates. We are hearing the new NOI but we also have to address the old one. We may have to close out the old one with a CoC. The house & septic are not being shown on this plan. We asked for it all – they said no. An as-built will show the whole site. The house & septic had conditions that
were never verified. The attachment to the original OoC had very specific specifications.
Paul N, GCC – You only have 30 days after completion of work to apply for a CoC.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I do have the original OoC site plan. It was built in 2002. The OoC is well expired.
Charles Waters, GCC – Do we have the minutes from those hearings?
Steve P, GCC Agent – There were a lot of them – my impression is that there was a lot of resistance to the project. 90% of the work was in the buffer zone.
Charles Waters, GCC – It would be helpful to send them out to the Commissioners. We need to know the history.
Paul N, GCC – We also need a COC of the old one.
Charles Waters, GCC – Why not start from the beginning?
Steve P, GCC Agent – We can’t ignore violations that occurred outside the timeframe of the last OoC. I’m not sure how to handle it – with an EO or a new NOI and CoC on the old one?
Charles Waters, GCC – Let’s take the whole thing & go from here.
Steve P, GCC Agent – They haven’t been building the whole time. Work stopped & then began again as a new project recently.
Paul N, GCC – Any work that was supposed to be done should not be folded into a new NOI – like the replication areas that need to be re-done.
Charles Waters, GCC – Why not have the applicant say what they think was under old OoC?
Mark G, GCC – Can’t we do this under the EO to force it to be complete rather than tying it up again? Then we clear that up & then go forward. I don’t want to overlap the two. We can take everything not done under the old OoC, close it out and then issue new NOI after it finished.
Paul N, GCC – That would make it cleaner & more finite.
Steve P, GCC Agent – What about things that were permitted then & would not be permitted now under the new regulations?
Charles Waters, GCC – We’re now 6 years from the conditions previously OKed by the Commission. What we want to do right now may be different.
Paul N, GCC - Get Steve to list them out.
Steve, GCC Agent – The applicant should list the waivers they’re requesting & list what’s outstanding from the old OoC.
Mark G, GCC –The EO could take the old OoC to completion & then move forward.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – The history is that we got an OoC in 2000. Warren Manter got it & sold the land to Mr Beegan & didn’t complete the work before he sold it. Mr Beegan didn’t finish it either. After a couple of years he realized that the drivway had difficulties. Some of it could have been resolved in the original OOC. The trees cut were in the area of the prior work area. There was fill on the curve. In February we discussed with GCC whether we were doing an EO or NOI. You said to do a new NOI. On June 16 we put together a new filing with the owners.
Paul N, GCC – I don’t recall the previous OoC being in the state it was.
Mark G, GCC – I never realized the OoC had expired 3 years ago.
Paul N, GCC – What in the original OoC wasn’t completed?
There was a response to this, but I do not recall the exact details – Steve may know as he has read the document.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Who was the original builder?
Paul Beegan, Owner – Warren Manter.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It’s strange that a contractor who had dealt with the Commission before didn’t know that he had to come to the Commission.
Mark G, GCC – Did he ask whether the OoC was current?
Russell Beegan, Owner – No.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – I agree to look at what needs to be done under the old OoC and take it forward to the new one or put under an EO. It will take some time to look at what is left over. An as-built plan could show superimposed on what was planned & what need to do. Manter agreed a 10’ wide paved driveway with 2 shoulders of 1’. He sold the lot incomplete. The Beegans took it on from there. He never filled out a limit of proposed disturbance – it was work that could have been done under the original order by him or the Beegans.
Charles Waters, GCC – Had the OoC exp when the Beegans purchased the property?
Russell Beegan, Owner – No, we purchased in 2000.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – They may not have known. Mr Beegan & Mr Manter were friendly & he may not have told them.
Russell & Paul Beegan, Owners – The price was so good I didn’t want to ask him to do more work. Once the house was complete the driveway was just something to put in.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – Their counsel must’ve been aware that there was an order on the property. They driveway was not as wide as it could have been to handle the snow – we thought the width of 12’ was the width it should have been done. The original order was for porous pavement. It is still not paved, it’s a gravel road. Porous pavement doesn’t work as well as it should. It’s not as durable with freeze / thaw cycles.
Steve P, GCC Agent – And this is a very wet area.
Mark G, GCC – It would work OK for a low travel area probably.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – We are requesting what we’d like to have for widths – with the driveway wider at the curve to make access for oil trucks. That’s where the fill was. We propose to replicate an area in the area to the right, just after the bend. The culvert was extended when they did the work – they had to do it for access. We ask for turnout spots in the middle of the straightaway on the flat – so vehicles can get by – 12’ is not enough for that. I don’t know if they were discussed at the original hearings. Manter showed where the tree stump holes were – that’s a new activity. This is a new NOI showing additional work & what would want the driveway to be when done. We’ve shown
the limit of disturbance proposed initially & where the limit of work is now in relation to that. We understood we have to close out the OoC. We can take an inventory of the wetland replication areas. We didn’t send our botanist to check it out because it was done in January. We can get her to evaluate that now & take the OoC line by line to see what the position is for the work to date. You could look at the EO to complete what wasn’t finished from that & issue a new NOI for the new activities. This project was initially denied by the GCC & appealed to state. The Commission and agent met with the state representatives & they compromised. There was 4100 sf of wetland disturbance. The bridge may or may not have been calculated in that. Add another 400 sf for filling.
Mike B, GCC – Steve & the applicant will create a list of differences between the original OoC & what is to be done.
Charles Waters, GCC – We should have an agreed punchlist of differences & issues. Then we can do a site walk.
MOTION for site walk on Aug 19 at 9 am – Mike / Tom / Unam
Tom Falzareno, 64 Jackman, Abutter – I sent a letter to the GCC regarding my concerns. The basis for the letter is that after the fact filing does not correct damage done. The only way this project was approved was for them to drop the impact area below 5000 sf – the driveway was originally 15’ and was dropped to 10 or 12. I can tell you now it is much wider in many areas. You wouldn’t allow that to go through today. My concern is with wetland. This is within 50’ of Jackman Brook. I walked it with Eric Harper & Harry LaCortiglia. I said my concern about the closeness to the brook. It is supposed to be labeled as a perennial stream. They said the drive would be permeable surface but now we’re talking about making
¼ acre of impervious surface within 50’ of the brook. This project is very close to the brook.
Mike B, GCC – We haven’t decided on paving yet.
Tom Falzareno, 64 Jackman, Abutter – I’m concerned for the wetland. I took pictures of Mr Manter in the wetland with his excavator.
Charles Waters, GCC – Your recollections re. what was discussed is why we’re pulling the minutes.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – What he’s calling the driveway & we call driveway – we differ.
Tom Falzareno, 64 Jackman, Abutter – I’m talking about surface you can drive on.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – I don’t know any areas where it is 25’ wide.
Tom Falzareno, 64 Jackman, Abutter – You show the beginning of the driveway as 13’ wide. It’s 19’ wide.
GCC – That’s why we’re having a site walk.
MOTION to continue to Sept 7 at 8:30 – Tom / Mike / Unam
| 
