GCC MEETING MINUTES
January 12, 2006
BUSINESS
HEARINGS
GCC MEETING MINUTES
January 12, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
VFW
Strong septic smell at the road near the VFW. Steve will investigate.
WORKSHOP IN THE WOODS CONTRACT
Carl S – I did review the new contract, it appears that some of the items that were deleted last year are back in, like the 10% renewal rent increase. It should also be for 5 weeks as they have set-up and clean-up time as well as the actual camp weeks. We need to make sure the CORI checks are done. They have to be requested from the state by a law enforcement or public safety agency. Also, the Camp Manager title hasn’t been approved by GCC yet. And, look at his contract for the re-appointment date, it may be overdue. Steve will take care of that.
Laura R – Stacey hires mostly teacher so their CORI checks have been done through the schools.
Paul N – We need to make sure most of the financial aid goes to Georgetown families as this is a town facility.
Laura R – I will talk to Stacey about how that is handled.
Action: Laura
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
MOTION to appoint Dick Talbot to the Open Space Committee – Paul / John / Unam
197 JEWETT FEMA CHANGES
25 BAILEY LANE EO
Steve P – This NOI file is incomplete. He is still using the road he decided not to file for. He is using delay tactics. We had an EO for him to file by a certain date, he did (but it was incomplete). He says he’s creating a farm – wants to clear cut acres, filling etc. We need to slow this down as he’s not currently under an NOI or any other form of control. He’s trying to put a road in 5’ from the wetland so he can say it is an established road. The wetland delineation was done in 2000 so is not any good now – it ran out in 2003. We have to jump to an NOI. He originally blocked the road with farm equipment but moved it so the road is being used again.
Carl S – This person is a public official scoffing at the law.
Steve P – We don’t have to allow him to put a road 5’ from the wetland. I have prepared an EO stipulating that he must permanently block the road, and cease any filling activity.
GCC – The EO can only be against areas within our jurisdiction. Add that language in specifically & then issue it next week.
HEARINGS
NORTH ST & WELLS AVE (GCC-2005-018; DEP 161-0629) ANRAD (Cont)
Reps: Kurt Young, Wetlands Preservation Inc; John Kiely, Owner
Kurt Young – We revised the site plans prior to the last hearing. The hearing was continued to give the abutters time to look at the new plans.
Steve P – I have looked over the vernal pool questions and made note of it in the ORAD. The plans may need modifying in that area at a later date. Otherwise this plan is solid. I recommend that we give them the ORAD for the plan as shown.
Fred Bodenrader, Abutter, 560 North Street – I haven’t seen this final draft – are there any questions from the GCC?
Steve P / Carl S – No.
Fred Bodenrader, Abutter, 560 North Street – This plan doesn’t show foot paths?
Steve P – That isn’t part of this process. At the next step, the NOI, will show that.
Fred Bodenrader, Abutter, 560 North Street – The trails have been there for years & years & years.
Steve P – We can ask them to show trails the abutters will continue to use.
MOTION to accept the delineation on the plan dated 12/6/05 Rev 2 and issue an ORAD which identifies the agreed on resources & boundaries (GCC-2005-18) – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Paul / Tom / Unam
256 EAST MAIN STREET (GCC-2004-056; DEP 161-0613) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Bill Manuel, Wetlands & Land Management; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering; Jason Nadeau, Owner; Geoff Nadeau, Owner
Bill Manuel – We had everything ironed out at the last meeting except for the reserve septic area. George Zamboras reworked the lot lines & had a discussion with the DEP over the reserve. There is an easement from the house to the reserve area should they ever need that.
Steve P – The Lot line would put the replanting area into the lot that isn’t owned by the applicant. How would we regulate that?
George Zamboras – For now it is all one property.
Paul N – Would we need an OoC on 2 parcels? How can we spread the replication OoC across 2 separate parcels?
Bill M – The OoC runs with the land. After it is sub-divided the OoC will still be in effect for the second lot.
George Zamboras – We can agree that when it is sub-divided that there is a note on the deed that references the OoC that applies to the new parcel.
Mike B – The forced main system wouldn’t be put in unless the main septic system fails?
George Zamboras – Yes, and who knows what regulations will be in effect in 5, 10 yrs time? Whatever they do, should the system fail, they will have to come back to you to work it out.
Carl S – How do we know the directional drill will succeed?
George Zamboras – It won’t fail, they’re only using a small pipe.
Steve P – But it’s going within 50’ of the buffer. Our regulations don’t allow any components within 100’.
Mike B – You couldn’t get this passed by the BOH without the reserve?
George Zamboras – No.
Mike B – So that makes it part of the system.
George Zamboras – Hypothetically. It may or may not be built at some point in future. If has to be built it will have to abide by the regulations in effect at that time – we can’t predict what they would be. We are showing an intended path that may not happen – sometime in the future, maybe. They would have to come to the GCC if did. If you consider the forced main part of system then & can’t put it in then they would have to deal with that.
There is no plan filed with the BOH. Deb Rogers (BOH) had 2 meetings with the DEP, and so did I. The first issue was the forced main crossing the wetland – the BOH is silent on that issue. The second issue – could the forced main be located in the easement. The DEP indicated that they had case law where a reserve area went onto someone else’s property on an easement – they were uncomfortable allowing a forced main inside an easement. So we forwarded sketches to Deb Rogers (BOH) to prove that a conventional system could be built. We are proposing to use infiltrators – in Title 5 you can have approval for new & alternative systems. Within the approval process they made the recommendation that it be allowed only if a conventional system can be
installed. We have given the BOH 2 alternative systems that can be installed there.
Steve P – I talked to the BOH today – as this is drawn it is OK with them.
Carl S – They haven’t voted on it yet.
Steve P – They are comfortable with how it is drawn. There is nothing in their regulations about components. It hasn’t come up officially but unofficially is approved by them.
George Zamboras – There is nothing with the BOH because this plan is for conservation purposes & not BOH. She says when this system is shown to them it will be acceptable. It shows a field, or galley system, can be installed in that area. That’s all we have to do for an infiltrator system.
Paul N – How is the infiltrator system different?
George Zamboras – Infiltrators have a chamber that gives partial credit for the pervious side wall area – you can get more square footage in a smaller area. The actual capacity is the same – 495 gal/day.
Paul N – The galley system says it is 528 gal/day. The infiltrator system as shown will be 495.
George Zamboras – It’s really closer to 500 gal / day. The new regulations for infiltrator systems (not approved yet) say we can use them as a right & don’t have to show what you would have to show for a conventional system.
Paul N – The big question, septic notwithstanding, is the land area with replication spread across 2 separate properties – we can’t enforce that.
Mike B – Have you officially sub-divided this yet?
George Zamboras – This commission is the only entity who has seen it.
Paul N – If it’s not approved that will push that piping system closer to wetland.
Steve P – The proposed sub-division won’t be part of this NOI.
Bill Manuel – The OoC goes with the land – it would have to be written for both lots. We can say the replication has to be done first.
Paul N – Absolutely, that’s what our regulations say. But how do you put that on a deed for a property without an NOI?
Carl S – We can render a decision on a property & it may be sub-divided later. It’s only different here because we know it will be. We are more concerned that it hasn’t been approved yet.
George Zamboras – At some point some board has to give some approval. We are confident that what we show here will be approved by the BOH. If not, we have to come back to you to determine whether it is a significant change or not.
Mike B – In what case would you use the reserve?
George Zamboras – If some future law about Title 5 said the reserve area must be used. As it is, we can repair the system exactly where it is. Dig it up, repair it right where it is.
Carl S – We see this mostly in repairs. We want to make sure the system is built right in the first place.
George Zamboras – We can repair a system in exactly the same spot it is in. If the owner of the future & the regulations are different, it will be fixed right there and the reserve area wouldn’t be used. It would only be used if someone elected to re-build their system there. If this was in the ground for years & we had to redesign, we’d put it back where it is here.
Carl S – If they have to dig under for the directional drill they have to come to us again.
George Zamboras – This isn’t how this has to be constructed – it’s just a proposed path. In 20 yrs or so the laws might have changed anyway. My boss will urge me put an easement on this plan even though it may never be used. Just because we put easement there it doesn’t mean they will use it, but they have it. It is an easement for the owner of Lot 2 to put their sewer on Lot 1.
Paul N – What probably will happen is that lot sizes will become smaller, so the septic won’t change but the lot size for Lot 1 will become smaller.
Mike B – I do like what will happen with the stream. It’s a mown swale now. I would like to see it restored.
Carl S – This project still doesn’t meet any of our setbacks.
Paul N – The setbacks are pretty decent through, except for the driveway – at 50’. Have you thought about using a pervious surface?
Bill M – When it’s paved can it can be plowed. Gravel won’t stay in place.
Paul N – There are alternative surfaces which are permeable and can withstand plowing.
Bill M – They don’t stand up to plowing.
Steve P – Recycled asphalt (like they used at Camp Den) is laid cold & steamrollered – it has pores & is pervious.
George Zamboras – It isn’t as pervious as gravel but is semi-pervious.
Carl S – There are alternatives. They may not be as desirable for I-95 but are fine for a driveway.
Steve P – This project is completely with in the 75’ – where we stipulate no impervious surfaces. We have some flexibility to dictate what it is made out of.
CS – There should be perpetual conditions added to say that sodium based ice control should not be used.
Paul N – We’ve certainly tried to work with you all. We would like to see as much of a setback as possible. I can’t see why a compromise on this surface is bad.
George Zamboras – Can we just say that it has to be a pervious surface to be approved at the time?
GCC – Fine.
Mike B – When are you going to do this, considering that the stream feeds several vernal pools downstream? I’m worried about construction runoff into those areas.
Jason Nadeau, Owner – We could start work in June if we got approval now.
Mike B – In early spring we have several vernal pools in GRSF with endangered species. We need to have the work done outside of that time.
Carl S – That should be specified in the OoC.
Steve P – The raw facts of the numbers are against this project. The 75’ buffer is halfway through the corner of the house. The siltation & grading is < 50’. The septic components are within 100’. Based on biology of the area.
Jason Nadeau, Owner – The footprint of the house might not be as large as is shown here – this probably includes some porches, though hasn’t been designed yet.
Carl S – It is very unusual for us to approve a plan before it has received full approval from the BOH.
George Zamboras – This configuration of the septic system is exactly how it will be submitted to the BOH.
Steve P – Deb Rogers (BOH) said she was comfortable with it.
Carl S – It’s going under the resource. When we approve a plan we want to see everything there. If there is anything we want changed we have to do it now.
Paul N – The Plan should say that the driveway should be pervious; when they can carry out construction; when planting can occur; and record the date of the plan.
Carl S – Also that way when it’s approved that’s exactly what will happen. Do we want the easement on here?
Paul N – No, we’re only concerned with what happens at the wetland, not what happens at the other end.
Steve P – We also need additional stone bounds 15’ away all along the wetland. I’ll add a note in the OoC that the bridge construction would be approved by agent. We can schedule this for the next meeting. We need to see the new plans here 10 days before.
Carl S – If you can make these changes asap we can get you into the next meeting for a short period of time.
MOTION to continue to Jan 26 at 7:15 – Tom / John / Unam
44 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-024; DEP 161-0632) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Greg Hochkiss, Glenmere Environmental
Greg Hochkiss – I was last here in September with the applicants. To recap, the deck is structurally complete. They know they messed up. They added 6 sonar tubes for 200 sf of deck. The blocks are next to an existing retaining wall that the new deck went over top of. We suggested a smaller restoration area but were told we had to make a bigger one. The wetland that is currently maintained as lawn – they are currently mowing grass in the wetland – is the restoration area. The new restorationn plan is 3.75:1. We are also adding monumentation. Steve P suggested shrubs instead of what is there now on slope.
Paul N – The earth at the sonar tube on the end is eroding. It’s all fill & nothing is growing there – it’s towards the very steep corner.
Steve P – It is steep & without a lot of sun. It will be hard to get anything to grow there.
Greg Hochkiss – It’s terraced with cinder blocks. The applicants are not living there yet because the house is not complete. I added a note in a letter – there are invasives in the wetland.
Paul N – There is a deep, channeled stream bed with banks right there at the edge of the grass.
Steve P – It’s a healthy system out there.
Carl S – That trench could be from mosquito control.
Steve P – We mentioned moving that shed – is that still going to happen?
Greg H – That was an attempt to give something back for mitigation – it would cost about $2500 for dumpsters etc to remove it.
Carl S – We normally don’t allow bad stuff to come forward & be absolved after the fact.
Greg Hochkiss – Actually, having more deck would keep people out of the back yard.
Carl S – If this house gets sold the new owners could come and say they can’t live with that.
Steve P – Are you getting rid of the invasive loosestrife?
Greg Hochkiss – Their property line goes back quite far. There’s actually only one spot of loosestrife.
Steve P – We can go out & determine the areas we want removed.
Greg Hochkiss – The reclamation area will be seeded with NE Wetland Mix, trees, shrubs, etc.
Carl S – You’re not doing reclamation, this is restoration. It’s already wetland. You can’t offer any replication.
Steve P – He’s right, behind the retaining wall is a sandy area. The sonar tubes are very close but the retaining wall would be just as close as this would be.
Carl S – Yes but, we wouldn’t have allowed them to do this if they had come to us.
Greg Hochkiss – It was almost impervious surface there already. If they put the tubes farther away they would have had to remove the retaining wall which would’ve been worse.
Paul N – We need to fix that eroding retaining wall now then. The water going through the deck will contribute to erosion.
GCC – The new plan will show the restoration plan; shed removed & the removal plan; the planting scheme – with the enlarged area & steep slope planting; monumentation. Plan should also refer to some kind of planting or structural additions to prevent erosion around the outermost Sona Tube.
MOTION to continue to January 26 at 7:25 - Tom / John / Unam
1 KINSON COURT (GCC-2005-028; DEP 161-0634) NOI (Cont)
No reps.
Steve P – The applicants are not here and they didn’t appear last time either, despite repeated reminders from both Laura and myself. They haven’t asked for a continuation. They are just finishing the interior of the house. The EO says there will be no work on the hillside. We’re still asking for a detailed as-built plan – the plan we’re working from is the original they submitted for approval but the house was moved significantly from its position on that plan. They contacted an engineer & submitted a plan with a retaining wall (it has a crayoned line to show the line of the retaining wall) but it isn’t an as-built plan - it doesn’t show where the house & driveway currently are.
The NOI should have been filed defining the actual construction they did – where the house was going to be and the fact that it involved taking the hill down.
MOTION to deny GCC-2005-028 on both state & local for lack of information and lack of co-operation– Tom / Paul / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / Unam
| 
