GCC MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Charles Waters, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
BUSINESS:
AMERICAN LEGION PARK BASEBALL FIELD
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Water accumulates at the 3rd baseline and runs down the hillside. They want to drop in some gravel & a pipe to catch it. I requested a dry infiltrator with overflow and asked for the engineering information.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Will it be a sub-surface infiltrator? It’s a playing field.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, it’ll go into a sub-surface infiltrator 2’ down with soil & grass over it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This needs to come officially from Park & Rec.
WORKSHOP IN THE WOODS
MOTION to approve payment of $750 for 5 scholarships for 1 year for environmental education – Paul / Mike / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain (CW)
HEARINGS
5 HART CIRCLE (GCC-2006-25) RDA (Cont)
Reps: Nick Lawlor, Owner; Savos Danos, Consultant
Savos Danos, Consultant – The board asked us to put the shed farther away from resources. The owner has put it near the drive, 50’ from the wetland in the last flat spot before the septic. It will be used to store only lawn tools & driveway equipment. A row of blueberry bushes will be planted in the spring along the wetland edge.
Paul Nelson, GCC – This is really at 30’. There is no reason it can’t be at 50, as per our regulations.
Savos Danos, Consultant – If we put it closer to the circle, we lose the flat surface – this is the last level spot before the circle.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If you rotate it 90 degrees & put it alongside the house it would be over 50’ away. Why can’t you do that?
Savos Danos, Consultant – Because of the setbacks. It’s too close to the property line there – within the 20’ setback.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Why can’t we come closer to the 50?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It is 36’ from the wetland & goes out to the 50’.
Savos Danos, Consultant – We’re doing the best we can. We don’t want an eyesore in the front yard.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Will you grade on the overdig?
Savos Danos, Consultant – Now you’re arguing for an elevation change.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Can’t you rotate it & slide it next to the driveway?
Nick Lawlor, Owner – We are trying to keep the nice side of the shed towards the house.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You can specify that when you buy the shed. You can pick up another 7’ away if you move it around.
Savos Danos, Consultant – It’s a visual continuation of the house like this.
Carl Shreder, GCC - Is this all lawn now?
Savos Danos, Consultant – Yes, he’ll try to get it as far into the corner as possible.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If you rotate it you can get it much closer to the 50.
Nick Lawlor, Owner – It’s just a small storage shed for lawn/snow tools.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Do you definitely need it facing perpendicular to the driveway? You might get a few feet farther away if you turned it.
Savos Danos, Consultant – We can get half outside the 50 if we turn it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We want to see it as far outside as we can within reason.
MOTION for negative finding & issuing of ORAD with conditions to be determined in the field with Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Mike / Paul / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain (CW)
Paul Nelson, GCC – I’m still not happy that it hasn’t been rotated – you could gain 2-3 more feet.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Is that possible?
Savos Danos, Consultant – This is a visual appeal thing for the neighbors.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It’s just aesthetics, not grading a hill.
Carl Shreder, GCC – How many feet can you move it forward?
Savos Danos, Consultant – 3-4’. Allow Nick Lawlor & Steve to do that in the field – there will be no grading, no foundation, only footings.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I’m happy to let Steve work that out at the time.
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain (CW)
129 ELM STREET (GCC-2006-30; DEP 161-0649) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Curt Young, Wetlands Preservation Inc; Denise Brogna, Attorney; Marty Halloran, T-Square Design; Carol Faraci, Owner
Curt Young, WPI – There is a stream running through the east portion of the site & another intermittent stream on the other side. We have a copy of correspondence from Jack Moultrie about the history of the culvert – the wetland was created as part of a town project, there is no drainage easement on that piece. We have requested a copy of the Planning Board minutes from the sub-division of the property. They are in off-site storage & won’t be found until later.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – We have a certified copy from the county recorder about the recording of the sub-division.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Jack Moultrie’s letter doesn’t say if the culvert created the wetland.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – We say the culvert was installed in the 70s as part of a drainage project. Under your current regulations it has been classified as an intermittent stream. We didn’t create the wetland, the town did. That’s what we say Jack Moultrie said. The property was purchased in the 60s. The wetlands in the back have always existed.
Curt Young, WPI – You asked for an alternative plan. We did submit a modified site plan which turned the house & driveway around to move the driveway away from the wetland. The septic system is narrowed to fit outside the buffer zone of the wetland in the back. It sets the house back & over.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Is the septic still within the 100?
Curt Young, WPI – Yes it is but we have gotten it as far away as possible.
Carl Shreder, GCC – GCC does not approve septics within 100’ .
Denise Brogna, Attorney – You did at 26 Mohawk Circle.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That was outside the 100. You said your alternative plan took the septic outside the 100’ but that’s not true.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There is no logic of comparing these two. The lot at 26 Mohawk was an approved building lot at that time and the septic was outside the 100.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I understand that this applicant applied to the town to get their taxes abated on this lot & got the Board of Health to write a letter saying that a septic could not be put on this lot in order to get their taxes abated.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We have the letter here (reads letter). “It is not possible to achieve 100’ setback …”. This was instigated by the applicant.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – It was instigated by the Assessors Office, not the applicant. She had a verbal from Mr Hunter (BOH) that they could never build anything here. It was being taxed as a buildable lot & got that abated.
Curt Young, WPI – GCC took the position that they had never permitted a septic within 100’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It had been previously permitted.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – They already had an OoC from the commission where it was closer. The town decided that the road was not an official road – so the couldn’t get a building permit. That’s how it ended up here.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That was a different case and a different situation.
Curt Young, WPI – That’s right.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The owners must’ve had tax abatement for many years on this property. The benefit has already been deriving to the applicant for many years.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – The town also derived benefit from the taxes before the letter. The letter was based on information from a town employee. That information was wrong. Now we discover it is an error.
Paul Nelson, GCC –Every setback we have is violated by this plan.
Curt Young, WPI – And this was a lot before the bylaw.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That is not relevant. If you want to build now you have to work with today’s regulations.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – The contemplated use at the time of purchase apply. The re-assessment came when the initial decision was made.
Paul Nelson, GCC – She accepted that & chose to abate her taxes.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There is no documentation with the Assessors, but the BOH says it was initiated by the applicant. The lot was sub-divided in 1989 but was not recorded with the Salem Registry until 1999. It is not official until it has been recorded. The Assessors say it is not a legal lot until then – 1999.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Are you saying you don’t have to comply with the regulations as it was sub-divided in 1989?
Denise Brogna, Attorney – No, if it was sub-divided in 1989 then we follow the regulations in effect at that time.
GCC – No, that’s incorrect.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – These are local regulations, not state, that take away use of property.
Charles Waters, GCC – Your theory is whenever someone purchases a property you go back to the regulations in place at that time?
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, if I bought a property before the hazardous waste laws I could dump out there?
Denise Brogna, Attorney – In this case when you are taking away the value of property you are taking reasonable value & we can sue.
Charles Waters, GCC – Do you have a case that says that? You say we’ve got to consider which rule & regulations were in effect at the time?
Paul Nelson, GCC – She’s saying this is a taking because we’re applying current regulations.
Charles Waters, GCC – You’re saying that the property was purchased / sub-divided over 15 years before the regulations but they should be applied from the time of purchase.
Curt Young, WPI – The septic is within 32’ of an intermittent stream.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – On Mohawk Circle?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – The intermittent stream is not a BVW.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Those applicants also agreed to mitigation.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This is a completely different case. There are no similarities between the two.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – That was a previously accepted OoC that had expired.
Curt Young, WPI – And it was a wetland.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – But it was outside the 100 to the BVW, it was land subject to flooding. Land subject to flooding did touch the edge of this.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It was a locally jurisdictional ILSF.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – The reserve area of Mohawk was within 100.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The fact that something was done wrong once doesn’t mean we should do it again. If you look at this case here – there will be 4’ of fill; a 1:1 angle; tons of disturbance in the buffer; the water table is so high you have to put it on a slab.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You say was a previously disturbed area?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – It was a pig farm, there is a shed next to the wetland.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It is grassed but vegetated.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Is the shed the only structure?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes.
Curt Young, WPI – We want to reach consensus on what design makes the most sense.
Carl Shreder, GCC – If you get septic outside the 100.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You need to meet the regulations.
Curt Young, WPI – You want the least waivers possible?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes but, there are still all the other things they’re asking for.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Always ask for something without waivers & we’ll go from there.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There are waivers & waivers – a little grass here or there, but this is raising the land, adding rip rap, sharp slopes, etc.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Can you move the house?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes. We can make it drop off behind the house.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You need to meet more of the regulations.
Curt Young, WPI – Do you want the driveway on the right or left of the house? I am considering the runoff. It was intended to be pervious.
John Bell, GCC – Can you put in a smaller septic?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – It’s as small as possible already.
Curt Young, WPI – The system is fixed in this configuration. One flexibility is the location of the driveway.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – (Hands out square footage of footprint on plan.)
Carl Shreder, GCC – Look at the case on Maureen Lane. We went to court over that & you know the outcome of that.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – I am fully aware of getting the septic as far away from the wetland as possible.
Charles Waters, GCC – I read the minutes of the last hearing on this & am up to speed on this hearing.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – I read them as well and am informed as to the issues of this case.
Tom Howland, GCC – We agreed at the ANRAD that this was an intermittent stream. There was no debate on that then.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The distance of the septic is at 72’, siltation is at 10’.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – The wall is to keep people out of a resource area.
Paul Nelson, GCC – What’s the height of the wall?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – 3’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I tend to want to leave things as natural as possible.
Curt Young, WPI – It reduces the grading as well.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Can you modify the plan?
Curt Young, WPI / Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes, we can design something that comes as close to meeting waivers as possible.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – We can get the primary out of the 100 from the BVW but not the stream. Presently it is at 75’.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You can get everything but the reserve out?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes. Nobody builds a reserve because they never use it if have to do a repair.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It shows whether there is enough land to use.
Curt Young, WPI – It’s farther from the BVW but closer to the intermittent stream.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Can you get it 100 from the intermittent stream?
Curt Young, WPI – No.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – So, it will be touching on of those wetlands.
Curt Young, WPI – Yes.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – It’s a drainage swale.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – But it’s connected to a wetland so anything entering there will enter the wetland.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes.
Charles Waters, GCC – The house is as far south as it can go?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes, it can be tweaked.
Charles Waters, GCC – It looks like there is nowhere else to go.
Curt Young, WPI – No, we can make only slight modifications to the septic or the position of the driveway.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – What is the distance of the culvert to the wetland?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – 110’.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Why do you need so much fill?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – We have to be 5’ away from the water table. The top of the grade has to be 7’ above.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Where would the groundwater / surface water go after you modify this with fill?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Towards the wetland. It will be same infiltration as is grass.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You’re assuming the culvert was put in as adjunct. They put the culvert in to continue the stream. That wetland’s been up there a long time.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – It used to flow down the hill towards Brook Street. It was completed by the person who lived across the road & the town put the culvert in.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It channelizes across the rd & then goes underground – that’s where it goes into the culvert.
Curt Young, WPI – The owner bought it in 1962.
Carol Faraci, Owner - I complained to the town at that time that the pipe was illegal & they took no action on it. My husband wrote it. (Reads letter) They never answered.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Before the culvert it flooded across Brook St? How’d it get there? This land here is lower. So it was flooding over the road? So was that a natural channel for that stream before the road?
Curt Young, WPI – Don’t know.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If it went down Brook St then it went across the road.
Charles Waters, GCC – This letter was written in June 1982. When did you first notice the culvert?
Carol Faraci, Owner – I don’t remember. We were putting in a new septic at the other house. Some in the BOH said we had to have a special valve. I wrote & mentioned the culvert at the same time.
Charles Waters, GCC – Jack Moultrie says in 1972 a county layout shows this culvert. We can date this back to 1972 but don’t know how much earlier.
Carol Faraci, Owner – It was between 1962 & then.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – At time of culvert it was one large parcel.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Even so, we are still not satisfied with the plans.
Charles Waters, GCC – I would say I don’t see how you can build on this lot. You have done a good job with putting what you want to do as far away as you can but you can’t go far enough. I don’t see how you can make this into a situation that we can approve with smaller waivers. It doesn’t seem to make sense. Even so, I’d like to look a the case re a regulatory taking & have the applicant & Steve look into the culvert issue. If there is no easement I would be more comfortable in knowing more about the culvert & if it created the stream or if the stream was there first.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Whether it is manmade or not the end result is that it is still a stream.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t feel positive about the planned building on this lot. I want to make sure there isn’t a legal problem here. If the stream was made by the town there could be an issue. Whether town made it or not it is still a problem.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – That isn’t a conservation issue.
Charles Waters, GCC – We need to know more about that issue. If they bring evidence that it was dry until the culvert was added by the town it would be different. The issue is that there is no easement.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That’s just a mechanical problem of somebody not doing their job properly.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – How does this impact on the conservation front?
Charles Waters, GCC – We could say doesn’t matter but we have to look at it.
Curt Young, WPI – You do have to look at it. The state setback for a septic system is 50’. We are trying for a design takes into account current conditions. We are trying to arrive at a design that comes as close as possible to reducing impacts.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There are research issues that need to be worked on and you need to work on the plan to improve it.
Curt Young, WPI – We have a limited amount of space to work from.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Resources all over the state have been altered over the years. It’s a fact of life.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – So the history of culvert isn’t important, you want to see plans that have fewer waivers?
GCC – Yes.
Paul Nelson, GCC – This violates everything we have.
Charles Waters, GCC – I would like some historical info.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Then find out if was a stream there before the road.
Charles Waters, GCC – I’m interested in was it there when she bought the property. My concern is that she bought the property & the town put a culvert there that influenced her land & put a stream through her property.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Your assumption is that that they put a culvert to create something that wasn’t there before.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – It was probably put in to handle water that was there anyway.
Charles Waters, GCC – It’s up to them to prove.
Tom Howland, GCC – Why wasn’t this issue debated at the ANRAD? It was accepted as an intermittent stream an an ORAD was issued to that effect.
GCC – That’s true, it was accepted then.
MOTION to continue to January 11, 2007 at 7:30 – Mike / Tom / Unam
Carl Faraci, Owner – Why am I being punished for the town doing something illegal? There is no easement & no pipe.
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s not our issue.
101 LAKE SHORE DRIVE (GCC-2006-33; DEP 161-0655) NOI (New)
Reps: Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering
Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering – This is a septic repair. It’s an infiltrator system, the leaching area is outside the 100’. We’re only replacing the septic. The only thing within the buffer zone is the removal of the existing tank, re-routing the water service line.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – All the major components are outside the buffer zone?
Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering – Yes. It’s OK with the DEP, NHESP, and BOH.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There’s no other place to go with this system. The silt fence goes to the edge of property line – can they get permission to put it on their property to enclose the work site?
Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering – We can look into that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is there an existing system in the same place?
Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering – It’s just a tank. We will empty it & fill it.
Carl Shreder, GCC - All the components are outside the 100? And are the street setbacks OK?
Karen Westphalen, Atlantic Engineering – Yes to the components. We needed a waiver for the street setback and got it.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – It is unlikely any erosion will go to the site next door but we’ll look into moving the silt fence over there if possible.
MOTION to approve the plan dated 10/13/06 & issue an OoC – John / Tom / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
10 BARTLETT DRIVE (GCC-2006-31; DEP 161-0654) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Marty Halloran, T-Square Design; Leonard Laing, Owner
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – We made changes to the plans as requested at the last meeting. We’re providing armoring in front of the wall, rip rap at 2:1 slope, added a sub-drain at the end of the boat ramp. The base goes 12” under. We will change the plan to show the new dimensions.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Did you add a flow spreader for the end of the pipe?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes. The NHESP is asking for a MESA study for bridle shiners. My client asked Seekamp to do that within the next week. The NHESP has 60 days to act on it.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The state wants the NOI to be reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – Yes, but if the wall isn’t complete before winter he could very well lose his septic into the pond. It’s almost an emergency to stabilize the slope.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Just to lay down a blanket or whatever?
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – The best solution is to build a wall. Seekamp is looking into emergency provisions under MESA. It’s not just a worry over the septic but also erosion.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The NHESP don’t waiver often.
Marty Halloran, T-Square Design – True but we’d like to look into an emergency situation. The only thing we could do is clean up the rubble & stabilize the slope. Whatever gives the least disturbance & most protection. Whatever we do will have as much impact as the wall.
Leonard Laing, Owner – The pond is up even now due to beaver.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We can agree that wall is best option but Nat Her …
Carl Shreder, GCC – We do agree the wall is the best solution but have to work with regulations of other bodies.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I can call them & work with them on it.
MOTION to continue to December 14 at 8:45 – Tom / Mike / Unam
THURLOW STREET CULVERT (GCC-2006-34; DEP 161-0656) ANOI (New)
Reps: Jack Moultrie
Jack Moultrie – This is a limited project project replacing an existing 15” overflow pipe to control the level of the pond. The pipe is partially collapsed. There will be excavation where the pipe is located, replacing & re-filling. We will use reinforced concrete pipe rather than corrugated metal. We’ll schedule it for when the water level is low.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There will be no change in the water level?
Jack Moultrie – No. The existing pipe is rotten & partially collapsed.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – What is the new pipe made from?
Jack Moultrie – 15” round concrete, a Class 5 pipe.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I would like to go to box culverts as we replace more over time to allow better capacity for wildlife but this is only for overflow. As we go forward others may be more important for box culverts but it would be overkill for this one.
Jack Moultrie – If we attempted to install a box culvert here we’d have to raise the road bed substantially.
George Tollman, Abutter, 389 North St– When I-95 was built that area was filled in. It has raised the water level in that area so that surrounding homes in that area constantly flood. I’m glad to hear it is being fixed. A lot of the pond was filled when the sub-division was put in & not compensated for, so there have been even more problems since then.
MOTION to approve the project and issue the OoC – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Tom / Unam
| 
