GCC MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Mike Birmingham, Mark Gauthier, Charles Waters, John Bell, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski
HEARINGS:
GCC MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Mike Birmingham, Mark Gauthier, Charles Waters, John Bell, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski
HEARINGS:
31-33 EAST MAIN STREET (GCC-2006-15; DEP 161-0644) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Jim Scanlan, Scanlan Engineering
Jim Scalan, Scanlan Engineering –Indicated that the new plan with requested changes was submitted. Also submitted two alternatives which only gained 6’from the resource.
MOTION to approve the plan dated 8/15/06 without accepting the wetland lines – Mike / John / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
1 AMBURG STREET (GCC-2006-20; DEP 161-0646) NOI (New)
Reps: Bill Holt, Professional Land Services
Bill Holt, PLS – The septic is failing. Seekamp provided the wetland delineation. Are replacing the current system w/ Title 5 system. Can only get 50’ from the wetlands. The water table is at 46’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Where is the older system?
Bill Holt, PLS – It is shown on the plan.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You could put the poly liner on the wetlands side.
Bill Holt, PLS – He could, but doesn’t want it on all 4 sides.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Will you wrap around 3 sides?
Bill Holt, PLS – Yes. It needs to be on the street side to keep the effulent out of the street drains.
Paul Nelson, GCC – What will be the drainage changes?
Bill Holt, PLS – It won’t dramatically change flow directions.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Would it help to put it on the wetland side?
Bill Holt, PLS – There is a filter in the system that begins to clog and will cause the system to run more slowly – the home owner can lift filter and clean same.
Tom Howland, GCC – Aren’t we encouraging them to use silt sox rather than hay bales?
GCC – Yes.
MOTION to approve the plan dated 6/21/06 not accepting the wetland lines – Paul / John Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Tom / Unam
BAILEY LANE BRIDGE (GCC-2006-13; DEP 161-0643) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental; David Chappell, Chappell Engineering
Doug Sparrow/David Chappell presented the plan which was being considered – with a large loss of flood storage.
Reduced flood storage through 2 other alternative plans, but were more expensive (retaining walls). Flood water storage is the issue.
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – Was a site walk to area where the water dept has one of their pumps to look at an area which could be used to mitigate the flood storage requirement. Create a channel into a sand basin which will be evacuated and could used to create replication of wetlands. Shrubs around edge of basin, then plant trees on top of the edge of the basin.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I like this site as it is very close to the area of flooding
Carl Shreder, GCC – Can you get wetland replication to work in sand?
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – Would have to layer with loam.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This area is heavily traveled by dirt bikes & off road vehicles. I wouldn’t normally propose fences but if we don’t prevent them from coming in here they could destroy the site very quickly. If it is left the way it is now it would be a waste of money. This is also an endangered species area – the plan has to go by the turtle people as it could be a nesting site for Blandings turtles. They want to work with us re timing of the work – late fall, early winter. This could actually improve the habitat for them.
John Bell, GCC – We will need barriers to keep out the off road vehicles.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Dirt bikers would even ride through the sand.
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – We will need barriers – maybe in an irregular formation to discourage traffic.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We can use the barriers until the trees become large enough to discourage riders. We need to speak with the NHESP and the turtle people.
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – Is this the concept we should be moving forward with?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Have you had any communication with the Water Dept?
Doug Sparrow / Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, via Jack Moultrie and Water Dept personnel.
John Bell, GCC – What is the elevation difference between the new and old roads?
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – An average of 2’.
John Bell, GCC – Where will there be retaining walls?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – There would be retaining walls on both sides of bridge.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – What will be removed in the process
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – Approximately 18” of the bridge surface
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Where there is slope added, add bushes, etc.
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – We can do that as well as adding matting to stabilize the soil.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is the proposed bridge any wider than the old one?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – The new structure will be 24’ wide – about the same as it is now.
Carl Shreder, GCC – How deep will the piles be driven?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – Could be up to 40’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is the structure designed for a 100 year flood?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – Yes, the water will flow over the bridge – in a storm such as last May.
Carl Shreder, GCC – How long will it take for this project?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – One construction season, beginning in the fall.
Paul Nelson, GCC – So the plan being discussed (the middle of the road plan) is the one we will be moving forward with?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering - Yes.
Mark Unger, 29 Bailey Lane, Abutter – This project is to remove the cap and put on a new bridge structure. Giving the expense of the project, why not repair the culvert too?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – We did a comprehensive study which was presented to the town.
Mark Unger, 29 Bailey Lane, Abutter – Why didn’t the town authorize culvert repair, etc?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – The plan does include some work on the culvert – including cleaning the channel of sediment.
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering /Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – The restored bridge will not utilize any supports currently in place on the bridge. All supports will be replaced during the project.
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering /Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – It will be at least 2 months before they will have enough information to present the next stage of the plan.
MOTION to continue the hearing to Nov 2 at 7:30 – John /Mike / Unam
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (Cont)
No reps.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have a request from the applicant to continue.
MOTION to continue the hearing to Sept 7 at 9:00 – John / Mike / Unam
25 BAILEY LANE (GCC-2006-16; DEP Not Issued) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mark Unger, Owner
Carl Shreder, GCC – Where are we on this project?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Base on the edge of the bank, by the culvert, commission members did not feel comfortable with the plan presented by the applicant. Specifically, the fill for the upper roadbed and filling of the bowl which is intended to mitigate the erosion should be analyzed by a professional engineer.
MOTION to have a professional engineer review the current plan and recommend solutions. – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to continue the hearing to Oct 5 at 7:30 – John / Mike / Unam
24 SPOFFORD AVENUE (GCC-2006-19) NOI (New)
Reps: Jim Disabatino, Owner
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I am asking for permission for the removal and & replacement of an existing driveway & to construct a new deck to be added to a single family house.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This is a follow on to an EO.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Yes, there were some mis-understandings I take responsibility for & am here to correct them. I have gone through the NOI process as though it were a new application for a permit. I started the project thinking it was still under the old permit from 3 yrs ago for a garage. I had permission then for both a garage and a deck. When I finished the garage 3 years ago I had to wait 3 years for money before starting the deck. There was a question on the original plan re deck – the size & why it was put on that way. I said I would resubmit as though it were a new filing.
Paul Nelson, GCC - And you’d be asking for a waiver.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Yes, that would be to go 10’ beyond the house to accommodate the deck - to make it look symmetrically correct.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The deck is now existing?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– It is in construction.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I issued an EO to cease & desist all activity. The Sonar tubes are in, the pilings are in. I recommended not finishing it until the hearings were complete.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– The deck is completely framed.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Do you have a building permit?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I did, it was issued in August 2003. The OOC was issued in June 03. I thought the building permit date was the date I was going by – I got mixed up & thought I still had 2 months left on the OOC but it was the building permit date I was thinking of.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I talked to the Building Inspector about this. He was not aware of the extension to the deck. He has inspected it & it’s structurally OK but they are adding additional fees because the deck is not what was originally approved either by the Building Dept or the GCC.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – What was the square footage of the deck on the permit?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Originally about 240 sf.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – They are not aware of deck square footage. The structure is OK but this new addition about doubled the size of it.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – This new one has another 140 sf on it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That’s why the stop order was issued & it’s coming back here now with a new NOI.
Paul Nelson, GCC – And the last issue was the driveway. The excavated soil was sitting in your yard by the pond. It really doesn’t belong there.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That’s all going to be removed.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – That’s under the EO. He hasn’t touched it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I can’t do anything with it now because of the stop order. It would have been gone if I had been able to finish the driveway. It wasn’t an excavation, it was a scraping of the old underlayment of the old driveway. There can’t be more than 1 truckload of dirt there.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It looks like a lot more than that.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – Let’s call it 2 truckloads.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What concerns me is that the deck is partially built & that the GCC didn’t necessarily approve such a deck & we are now faced with the situation that it’s already there.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– As I said, all that dirt will be removed & the grade will be returned to the way it was before. Once the driveway has been paved all that will be removed.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Who is your contractor?
Jim Disabatino, Owner- PK Construction out of Danvers.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – This deck on the original plan was long one way, 10x24 from the stairs.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Yes.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – On the plan it shows it doesn’t physically extend beyond the house but by the dimensions 24’ from the stairs that takes it beyond the house.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The crux of the matter is that this whole thing was approved on the basis of a hand drafted plan that shows the deck not going beyond the house so the issue becomes that you’ve pushed it beyond the house. I don’t think the original GCC would’ve signed off on that if they had seen it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Like I said, there wasn’t any question on it then. There were mis-understandings & that’s why I’m here now.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You don’t really want to correct it, you just want a waiver so you can continue on with it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The issue is that you’re looking for de facto approval after the fact.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I was advised to do it this way.
Charles Waters, GCC – What way?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– To put in a new NOI for the deck & driveway. So it could be considered as one.
Charles Waters, GCC – You’ve put the commission in a very difficult position because you’re asking for variances that you either knew, or should’ve known after 2003, that you needed – it doesn’t matter which - & now you’ve already started building it & put us in the position of retroactively having to say it’s OK.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So then it becomes OK for everyone to do that.
Charles Waters, GCC – What we’re really concerned about is this practice of going ahead & doing what you want to do when you knew, or should’ve known, that you couldn’t do it & then coming before the commission & retroactively ask for permission to do it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– It was a case of I didn’t know. I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I wasn’t aware that you needed a permit for removing and replacing the driveway.
Charles Waters, GCC – We’re talking about the deck.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I understand, I’m talking about the whole project. I haven’t caused any damage to the hill it’s on. No damage to the pond as far as silt runoff into the pond. No damage to any wildlife or vegetation on the hill outside of where I put the Sonar tubes. As far as disturbed soil on the hill, we’re talking 1-2 cubic yards with the 9 sonar tubes I put in. It’s not like I came in with a bulldozer & put in a foundation wall to build a deck on. I dug holes 12” in diameter & sunk a Sonar tube. I tried to be as least invasive as possible so there would be as little damage as possible. Because I know, I live next to the pond. I don’t want to ruin what I’m trying to improve upon – that wouldn’t make sense. I never any intent to deceive any board including this one. I never attempted to hide anything. I had a building permit good through August 06 which was what I was going by, not knowing other permits had to fall in line as well.
Charles Waters, GCC - I don’t think we’re saying you came before us in deceit. The problem is that you didn’t come before us.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I mis-understood the dates on my approvals.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You could’ve applied for an extension to your OOC. That’s not the issue. The issue is you’ve gone beyond the footprint of what was originally approved & that is the real problem. And now the commission is faced with the issue that we may not have approved that originally & now we’re being pushed to do it. We may not take that route. This is a position we don’t like to be in. We don’t like to operate that way.
Charles Waters, GCC – It sets a bad precedent. It tells the rest of the people to go ahead with an if-y project & file later, after the fact.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That’s not what I’m doing here.
Charles Waters, GCC – I’m not saying you are. We need to be concerned with the future.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have to live with our decisions. From here out we have to live with whatever decision we make today – we have to be careful how we do that.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We have to look at it as though the deck is not there, under a new NOI & look at it for what it is.
Carl Shreder, GCC - That’s the only way we can
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We can’t keep browbeating the applicant over whether he did right or wrong, we have to look at it for what it is. It’s a deck, it’s 17’ from the wetland, whether it’s bigger than the original or that one was approved by mistake – those are all expired issues.
Charles Waters, GCC – I agree with everything except the browbeating comment. We have to explain our position.
Carl Shreder, GCC - We have to explain a very serious issue.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – I withdraw the browbeating.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This would set a precedent. I’m very concerned with that.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – I agree. Now, the question is whether the deck is staying or going.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent - There are 2 issues. The driveway is v separate. We can work with it even though there is a lot more digging & disturbance, if we had known about it beforehand we could have conditioned it & it wouldn’t have been that big of a deal. Although it looks horrific, I’m not as concerned. We can replace it and put it back to its previous condition. We can work with the driveway.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – I think we would’ve allowed the driveway.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I agree. It’s repairing an existing structural feature.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – What I want us to do is look at this as a deck that doesn’t exist. What would you do?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – A good number of the commissioners have been out to the site –almost everyone has been there. Let’s break this up, I think we can put the driveway to bed. If this had come before us I would’ve stipulated that the soil be stockpiled on the other side. We don’t have that option now, let him finish the driveway. He has the silt fence in. Let him fix it, pull the soil back, remove it offsite, grade the driveway.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You can’t do the driveway under the EO, it’s under the NOI here now.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We can certainly handle that under an EO, it’s up to our discretion & judgement.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Technically we didn’t have to open this NOI. We could’ve handled the whole thing under an EO. Right now we can use both tools. I think the driveway needs to be stabilized, let the gentleman get his driveway back. Pull the soil back & get it graded.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – OK, let’s do the driveway under the EO.
GCC – Agreed. The driveway and the soil.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– The driveway was added onto the new NOI, so are you saying we’re doing that under the stop order?
MG- Yes, to expedite it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– So if it’s going to be taken off of the NOI then that will reduce the amount of money that it’s going to cost me to put this thing in.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You can leave them both in place on the NOI.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– My suggestion is that if you’re going to do that then leave it on the new NOI so we don’t have to go through all that and I should get a refund.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – If we come up with a solution for the whole project tonight it would still be one document.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I’m not sure about the refund. Fines are another matter.
Charles Waters, GCC – Should we talk about fines?
Mark Gauthier, GCC – If we do that, then we need to talk about whether the deck has to come down. At that point if the deck has to come down, that’s when the fines would come in.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You don’t have many options. Leave the deck. Take it down. There’s a trade off. There has to be a public benefit to any trade-off we offer. There isn’t much area to restore in that buffer. If you encroach in one place, have to give something back. There’s very little that can be offered. There are 2 options here – deck there, deck not there.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – What’s I’m saying is if we determine the deck has to come off that’s when the fines would come in. If we want it removed & it’s not removed.
Charles Waters, GCC – No, even if we accept the deck could we institute fines relating to the applicant building a deck without permission?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– The EO said there would be fines if there was any work after the effective date of the EO. I have done nothing since Steve told me to stop.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – To be fair to the applicant, the only way you could impose fines would be if you specify to remove the deck within a timeframe & it isn’t. We have many enforcements in place, I don’t know that we’ve ever fined for past deeds. This is certainly not an optimal sentence to have in. I recall the statement, but also believe that several of indicated that fines have been levied and collected – or we got something in lieu of the fine. I would highly recommend the fines as we work going forward. The applicant has fully co-operated – the silt fence is up, he ceased & desisted as soon as he was told to.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – He went down and did an NOI the next day as requested, stopped all work, requested the earliest possible meeting. I don’t want to set the precedent of a retroactive EO – I could think of many cases that would impact.
Charles Waters, GCC – I just wanted to discuss to see what the other commissioners thought of it. To me this is a situation that does cry out to be looked at whether fines should be implemented – this is exactly the sort of situation where fines shoud be applied. Absolutely. If this isnt’ then very few are.
Paul Nelson, GCC – This is a little different from legal litigation. We issue an order & if someone doesn’t comply then we issue fines.
Charles Waters, GCC – My question is, is that the only way to fine? I’m not sure it is.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – In our OOC it says that fines will be levied if they don’t follow the conditions. There is something in place for that. If a CoC is not requested within so much time fines can be put in place. The day that OOC expired, I’m sure there’s something in there that says that fines can be levied if the next step isn’t taken.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There’s no money stipulated there.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, but if don’t request a CoC within so many days of work being completed then a fine will be put in place.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I think it just says action can be taken. I need to read up on the specifics.
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes but, what if the OOC expires, they start work & don’t even comply with the original order? To me that cries out for action. This sets a bad precedent. It really concerns me.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It does happen. We have another situation where we have the EO finishing up the OOC.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – Normally when we have someone who has expired, we go out with an EO & then try starting to push them in the right direction – a lot of times it can go on for months & we don’t get co-operation. That’s when we get into a fineable situation.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We got on this track when the applicant asked for a refund so I said be happy we aren’t issuing fines.
Charles Waters, GCC – I’d like to ask Steve about what ongoing impact the extension to the deck would have.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent - A lot of it is ….
Jim Disabatino, Owner– There is no impact. It really doesn’t affect the pond at all.
Charles Waters, GCC – Let’s let Steve give his answer.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – A lot of this is based on our bylaw & regulations, straight up. This deck is 12-17’ from the pond where 75’ is required. It’s not for us to decide how much impact there is. It’s not allowed in our regulations. Even so, there is impact involved in this. You’re covering up the grass, decreasing the habitat
Carl Shreder, GCC – The more activity that occurs in close proximity to the resource area you’re going to have more impact – fertilizers into the pond, mowing right to the pond edge. In this case it’s more impact onto the pond in general.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – And the precedent in terms of the regulations is huge. We’re talking 12’ from the pond.
Charles Waters, GCC – Putting that aside, and I’m a strong believer in precedence & this is in violation of our regulations. If we’re just looking at the actual impact what would the difference be? I looked at the property, it’s a nice area. It’s mowed, people walk all around there, the area might be used in exactly the same way as if there were a deck. I’m wondering what the difference is. To some extent we do have to look at the fact that he’s already put in cement pilings. Would it disturb it more by taking that out than just leaving it in?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Leaving it in would cause less disturbance but it’s a precedence concept.
Charles Waters, GCC – Put precedence aside for a minute.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – OK, I could see the deck shading out the grass, it’d dry out & cause an erosion issue.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– The deck has been put up to allow natural rainfall to hit underneath the deck. The deck boards are not together to allow rainfall to percolate & irrigate the lawn underneath.
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes but, there is no sun
Jim Disabatino, Owner– There’s no sun on that side anyway.
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s not true, in this picture I see sun there.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– There’s no sun on that side of the house. The sun you see in that picture is over the top of the house & is not there during the day.
Charles Waters, GCC – You have to agree that the grass is not going to grow as well with that deck over it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner- I don’t think it’d make a diff one way or another. The sun rises on the NE side of the pond, goes over the top – the sun is only there for 2-3 hrs in the morning & then is gone. Those pictures were taken in the morning.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We need to go back to assuming the deck isn’t there.
Charles Waters, GCC – I disagree. We need to decide if we can live with the deck being there.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You can always live with something. The question is do you want to live with it? The better way to look at it is as if it’s a clean slate. Would we allow this to go in? And we have on occasion done that.
Charles Waters, GCC – The good part is that we can see exactly what he’s proposing because we can look at this picture & say “Here it is”. I want to discuss what impact the deck has.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If you go back & look at the original drawing & talk to some of the people who participated in it they were mis-led into thinking that that deck wasn’t going to be any further than the edge of the house. That sets up a new scenario right there. And at that point the deck went even further by wrapping around, so that compounded the problem without going for another NOI or coming back for an extension to the current OOC. We have a lot of different issues going on here. So I’m just saying forget about all of them & start from scratch.
Charles Waters, GCC – So you don’t want to discuss the impact a deck would have on this area?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Absolutely I do. We shouldn’t look at it as it is & ask if the sun is shining thru it- that’s immaterial – we should ask if we’re going to allow a deck on that side of the house that close to the pond.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The biggest issue is about setting precedence. The original commission was consistent in saying they didn’t want the deck going beyond the house. I would like to be consistent with the previous commission as we go forward.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We could certainly do that. It would be like starting off with the punishment side of it.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – No, it’s following through.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent - It’d be like overturning the old commission’s decision.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– If we’re talking about precedent, how about all the houses on the pond with a deck closer than I’m proposing?
Carl Shreder, GCC – If they’re existing & they’ve been there for 25 yrs there isn’t’oumuch I can do about that. The regulations say “going forward”. Since we have regulations we don’t go back to old ones, like we don’t go back to old laws. Obviously 90% of the homes on Pentucket Pond would never get approval now – for either building permits or Con Comm permits.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I understand that.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Were any of you on the original commission?
Carl Shreder, GCC – I was. It’s difficult to remember specifics but even in that era we were trying to minimize impacts & maintain the concept of following plans. We would never just generically say “that looks about right, just do what you want”. If we were shown this is what it’s going to look like that would be what we expect & this was what we actually approved. They’ve been doing that on this commission for years – getting everything documented on the plan. This is what we voted on, what I see in front of me. That’s why we are sticklers about not approving a plan until every last detail is on it.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – There is a letter from a commissioner who was on the board at that time, Harry LaCortiglia. I have a copy as well. It should be read into the record.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes, it’s correspondence related to the case so it is relevant.
Paul Nelson, GCC – (Reads letter.) He is asking us to hold to the same standard as was originally agreed. The plan was OK’ed but there could be no disturbance closer than the closest point of the existing house.
Carl Shreder, GCC – As previously mentioned, we need to look at the driveway vs deck. We need to decide what we really want to do re. deck on NOI.
John Bell, GCC – The driveway has more impact than the deck does.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – In the short term, that’s right.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Even long term, there’s a base of a tree that’s been impacted by the excavating.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That was the hardest part of the EO as I realized that if we stopped work there was potential for more impact. For the most part though it is fairly stable. We need to deal with that ASAP.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – He isn’t going to leave it there, he only stopped because of the EO.
John Bell, GCC – I know he has agreed to take the soil away & everything.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That was my original intention anyway. It’s way too rocky to leave there.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The crux of the final issue is the deck – leave it? Cut it back to the existing footpr? Remove it completely? Those are the 3 options.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – There is one other. Not allowing him to go beyond the house line to the water. As a discussion, if he took the material & we allowed him to square it out to the end of the house – but still saying he can’t go beyond the house. We’ve always said that.
John Bell, GCC – That’s what the prior commission stated, not to go beyond the house.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – As a line of demarcation of taking existing material & extend the deck not towards the pond but towards the driveway.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Then I’d have to dig more footings.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We need to get to a point where this sort of thing doesn’t happen. Get to a point where this is fixed. Damage will occur if he has to dig out sonar tubes but that shouldn’t be our main focus.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – How many times are we going to be sitting in future meetings having this discussion? That’ll be the first thing people do. Get it in the ground & deal with it later. Precedence.
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes but, if you analyze it in terms of impact rather than precedence then if you come to another conclusion then have to weigh it up. I think fining would come into play well here. If you have the ability to fine then you start weighing against the precedence issue a little.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – So fine him for doing it but leave the deck?
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes. If you think it’s less impact to leave the deck than not then you have the ability to implement a heavy fine.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The way it has worked previously is that we get “gifts”.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – No, that’s not fair. It only applies to whoever can afford it.
John Bell, GCC – That plays into the whole asking for forgiveness rather than getting permission thing.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There have been cases not too far in the past where the applicant had no replication offer to give us. It came down to “how much can I donate”. We can’t go there.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – Our bylaw isn’t for sale.
Charles Waters, GCC – Take it case by case.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – If this deck wasn’t here would you take a donation?
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s the tough part. If you analyze this & say that the impact is less to leave it then there’s an argument to leave it. That might not prevail. But if that’s the case then the commission has to consider leaving it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It’s a balance issue. That precedent will kill us.
Charles Waters, GCC – As I said in the beginning this is a very difficult place to put the commission.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Either the deck goes back to the original size or there’s got to be some sort of “give” for that incursion.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We’re talking about Sonar tubes, what about a full foundation? Would you take that out?
Charles Waters, GCC – We can’t talk about it hypothetically.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – This is just a couple of Sonar tubes, but there’s no reason for someone with a foundation to come here & say “I made a mistake I’ll do an NOI for permission”. And we’ll sit there & say we’ve allowed it before.
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes, there are serious precedence issues. I just want to fairly present a side of this that has to be analyzed.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There has to be either a monetary penalty or the deck can’t come back. Can’t have both.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I disagree with the monetary side of that. Often you replicate and give us some area of buffer. If there’s nothing you can replicate or fix then we shouldn’t be discussing cash. If this had an area that had been disturbed that could be replanted that’s one thing, but if they have nothing to offer the minute you talk about putting money in a conservation fund …
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s regulations for sale. I don’t want to have any part of that. If someone thinks they can buy their way through the regulations – it’ll cost me $500 – or $1000 , I can get around that. That’s no good.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – If we’re talking fines how much is enough? What kind of fine is going to deter future processes like this?
Charles Waters, GCC – We don’t need to go there now. I just think that if we examine that there is less impact to keep it up than take it down then we could make an argument we should be concerned with the impact to the resource. The precedent falls below that.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That’s short term thinking. You will gain in the short term with the disturbance here but you also set the precedent where other people will say we can do this. And it will happen. It does happen.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We’d have to be willing to accept that. People are going to do it.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t want to defend this option, but I’ll put it out there. Take every situation differently. Every case is different.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You know under law they don’t. Developers are looking for a precedent they can use to establish a foothold.
Charles Waters, GCC – My experience is that it’s very difficult to win on that because every case is slightly different If a commission is careful about its decision & clear about why one thing is OK and another similar one is not OK & articulates that difference then courts do uphold it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – For this evening we are not able to come to a decision about the deck but we are ready to take action on the driveway and that’s what I’d like to do. Let’s continue this. We need to reflect on this. It will take some time before we come to a decision.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I don’t want to drag this out. I want to hear from each commissioner. We’ve heard a lot. I’d like to handle both these together & get it over with.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I don’t see that there’s a lot more information to get on this.
Carl Shreder, GCC – For this to work we need to have some degree of commonality otherwise we have 7 opinions. When you try to push things thru you can’t even get a motion.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I just don’t want it to drag on forever.
Carl Shreder, GCC – OK, does anyone want to make a motion?
MOTION to deny NOI as the proposal violates setbacks in regulations and the bylaw as construction is within 17’ of Pent Pond – Paul / Charles /
Carl Shreder, GCC – This is a straight out denial or you could take it back to the original NOI in terms of the footprint.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I assumed the denial would be going back to the original deck not going past the house. I would not make him rip the entire thing down.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s right, for clarification are we denying him any deck at all or taking it back to the original footprint?
Paul Nelson, GCC – To deny the 2nd item, the construction of the L-shaped deck on a single family house. To leave the deck that originally ended at the end of the house. Just the portion that goes out and around.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, if you deny that the applicant has to file an NOI for the smaller deck.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – He had a valid OOC, though it expired.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It expired. That’s all done.
GCC – How do we let him have the original deck under the NOI?
Paul Nelson, GCC – We could waive the fees if he has to apply again.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We can’t waive state fees. Only local ones.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I would be comfortable leaving the original deck. Can’t we just deny the additional part of the deck & leave what was there before?
Carl Shreder, GCC – A denial is for 3 yrs. He’d have to come back with an NOI showing a significant enough change. We’ve been down this road before – he can’t file again with the same plan.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – Can we allow the original deck in the EO?
Carl Shreder, GCC – A strange thing to do under an EO.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We don’t want another application. We have to either accept or deny an NOI in total.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We can ask the applicant to modify his plan. We can say we don’t like what we see, ask him to come back with a modification.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – How about if we continue this hearing, he comes back with the additional deck removed from the plan & we can approve it with the 24x14 deck not going beyond the house & approve the driveway work. The applicant would have to approve that. It would be a 10 minute meeting. If he gets rid of the new deck on the plan we can give approval.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s the only way we can do it. Otherwise we have to deny the whole thing.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We can’t use the EO to allow the deck – that’s not legal - that’s giving a variance or a waiver through an EO.
Charles Waters, GCC – When was the work started on the deck?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– This year, right around the time it was approved.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – There’s no way to modify this NOI right now, this evening.
GCC – That’s right.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – He would have to agree to go away, remove the additional deck & come back with just the original deck. Then we can approve the deck & driveway.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The 24x10 deck couldn’t; go past the end of the house.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– 24’ does go past the end of the house.
Paul Nelson, GCC – So it would have to be more like 18x10.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I’m not sure of the measurements.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – Is there anyone adamantly against allowing him to bring the deck farther out from the house, parallel to the water?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That would involve removing 4 of those footings & digging 4 more. Or even 5 or 6 in another spot so I’d have to get approval from you, then I have to tear up that whole hill to take those 4 footings out of there. I’m partial to leaving it the way it is – that’s the part you mentioned before about least impact. Leaving it the way it is is causing no damage, it’s having no effect. I understand that it’s against the bylaw but the waiver of the bylaw would take care of that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We understand that but we’re in the midst of a motion to deny the whole NOI.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I’m asking that we don’t deny the whole NOI.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Are you willing to do the deck just to the edge of the house?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– That wasn’t my intent. Probably not. A 10’ by 16’ deck isn’t a very big deck.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Do you realize what that could mean to this? If this is denied, that means that the whole deck is gone & you have to come to us for anything that goes there. If you agree to change it you get to keep the deck as long as it doesn’t go beyond the house.
GCC – The edge of the house is the boundary.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If the applicant is willing to modify his NOI along those lines …
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Are you giving me a choice?
Carl Shreder, GCC – I’ll clarify this for you. Either the commission votes on the denial for the whole thing or, if you’re willing to entertain modification, he might withdraw his motion & then the commission asks you to make that change & for you to bring the plan to us & we vote on that modified plan.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– And I’m saying that to make that change would require the digging up of that hill to get the footings out of there. I probably wouldn’t want to entertain something like that. From a financial point of view it would need heavy equipment.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – A denial would bring not only that same financial burden but also the potential of fines if the work is not done in a timely manner.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– What about the potential for doing damage to the pond?
Carl Shreder, GCC – The same risk is there whichever way this goes – the denial says you will have to take the pilings down for the existing deck as well as the new part.
Charles Waters, GCC – The whole deck?
GCC – Yes.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I’m not interested in taking down the whole deck.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s what we’re trying to tell you.
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s crazy.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It’s because he started the whole deck after the OOC had expired. All the work was done in violation.
Charles Waters, GCC - Why can’t we go with an EO then?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We’ve suggested that if he removes this part of the plan he can keep the original deck. He doesn’t want to do that. Our only alternative is to deny the whole thing. It’s all or nothing. We’re not forcing him – we’re saying you can remove this willingly & we’ll allow you to keep this & approve it under a new OOC.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t think the applicant understands that.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – I agree.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What was your motion for, Paul?
Paul Nelson, GCC - To remove the L-shaped wrap-around. If he did the deck work after the OOC expired then it’s all on the table.
Charles Waters, GCC – The applicant says it started around the same time that the order was issued – that’s good enough for me. We can accept that the work was conducted within that order.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – I’m good with that too.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – So deny the NOI for the new activity & the old deck would be under the old OOC?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes but the applicant still doesn’t want the smaller deck.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t think the applicant understands what we’re saying.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Ask him again.
Charles Waters, GCC – Do you want to rip down this whole deck?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– No, I don’t want to rip any of it down.
Charles Waters, GCC – OK then if you rip down the part that sticks out from the house do you want to rip down everything?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I just said I don’t want to rip down anything.
Charles Waters, GCC – If we’re saying the part that sticks out from the house is going are you telling us well, the whole thing goes? Or do you want to keep the part that doesn’t stick out?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Do you want to keep the deck from the original OOC?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I’d have to rip down the whole thing. That one piece you’re telling me I can keep isn’t really a deck to me. It’s too small. I don’t want to keep that one piece of deck, it’s too small. The whole thing of filing a NOI was to get a variance to keep the deck the way it is. I came here with a new NOI in hand & went through all of that with the intent of getting a variance, now you’re telling me I can’t have anything.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Sir, variances aren’t guaranteed.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I understand that.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Could you double the size of the deck past the stairs, pull the stairs out & run the deck to the other corner of the house?
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We already suggested something like that, he doesn’t want any part of it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Then I have to rip up the sidewalk.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You could build over it.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We already put that option on the table, he isn’t interested in it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need to take a pause here so everyone can think about it, including the applicant.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – It’s very important that we give the applicant time to think about it & examine his options. We’re asking him to make a snap decision & it’s not fair.
Charles Waters, GCC – I agree.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – We’re going to have to do something & you need to pick your road. If I were sitting there I would find it hard to make the right decision.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– What are you asking me?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Think about what we’ve said as far as your options. We can re-meet soon & we can all think about what we’ve talked about.
Charles Waters, GCC – We’re saying we can take an up or down vote tonight if that’s what you want but some of the commissioners are saying you should reflect on what we’ve said & decide on your path. But if you want to vote tonight we will.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Theoretically, if is voted down then what are my options?
Carl Shreder, GCC – If you wanted to do something you’d have to re-file & it would have to be significantly different from this plan. Normally a denial is for 3 years.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Is there some sort of appeal process?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We would be making this decision based on our local bylaw.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– Is there an appeal process?
Charles Waters, GCC – When we deny it don’t we give the applicant that information then? Let’s leave it at that.
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I want to know what all my options are.
Charles Waters, GCC – You do have the right to appeal. If we decide something you don’t like, the information on the appeal will be in the denial.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There is recourse you can take.
Carl Shreder, GCC – If you will let the commission continue to the next meeting to reflect.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There is still a motion on the table.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is the applicant willing to have it withdrawn?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– As far as that motion, I am not willing to tear down part or all of the deck. I really don’t want to do that – it will cause me more problems than solve & the environment as well.
Charles Waters, GCC – You don’t want us to consider further?
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I do.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We all will consider it, you should as well.
MOTION to withdraw the motion – Paul
MOTION to continue to Sept 7 at 7:15 – John / Tom / Unam
Jim Disabatino, Owner– I’m not to do anything with the driveway either?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – No, I’ll drop by first thing Monday & you’ll be able to proceed starting Tuesday.
| 
