Top
GCC MEETING SUMMARY
January 26, 2006
GENERAL BUSINESS
74 JACKMAN STREET
Abutters reported tree cutting & wetland filling at this address. Enforcement Order (EO) issued to stop work.
COMMISSIONERS LOOP WELL
The original Order of Conditions on this project was for an underground directional drill from the well to the treatment plant. The Water Department explained that the directional drilling was not working as planned and the pipe may have to be dug into the ground from above. This would involve cutting a 30’ wide clearing for the length of the pipe through endangered species habitat. They were advised that if they are able to continue underground they do not need to re-file with the GCC. If the work has to be taken above ground they will need to re-file with the GCC and the state Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program (NHESP).
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN
Harry LaCortiglia asked the GCC to authorize the Open Space Committee to begin work on the 2006 Open Space and Recreation Plan. The town must have a current plan in place to be eligible for state grant money. Motion was accepted.
102 POND STREET / 25 BAILEY LANE EO
The property at 102 Pond Street has a long history with many violations. There are new contractors working with no GCC involvement. The contractor ignored a cease & desist order and carried out wetland filling work. An additional EO was issued ordering the owner to cease and desist all work on all parts of the property; to submit a professionally prepared plan including wetland delineation and wetland restoration plan. Motion accepted to ratify the EO.
The owner of 25 Bailey Lane has continued to use a new illegal road within 25’ of a wetland. An EO was prepared requiring the owner to cease using the road immediately; blockade the road permanently and leave the blockade in place; submit a professional site plan including wetland delineation and a wetland restoration plan. Motion accepted to ratify the EO.
HEARINGS
256 EAST MAIN STREET (GCC-2004-056; DEP 161-0613) NOI (Cont)
Motion accepted to approve the plan for the construction of a new Single Family House at this address. The owner will restore the wetland around the stream; keep all impervious surfaces outside the 70’ buffer; maintain a pervious surface on the driveway; and complete the restoration work before construction begins.
44 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-024; DEP 161-0632) NOI (Cont)
Motion accepted to approve the restoration plan including doubling the restoration area; additional monuments 15-20’ apart; slope stabilization; shed removal and the area seeded & restored with wet seed mix.
95 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-021; DEP 161-0626) ANRAD (Cont)
Motion accepted to issue a determination approving the wetland delineation including the Isolated Land Subject to Flooding in the SE quadrant of the property.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GCC MEETING MINUTES
January 26, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Mark Gauthier, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to accept minutes from Dec 15, 2005 with amendments – John / Tom / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
MOTION to accept minutes from Jan 12, 2006 with amendments – John / Tom / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
74 JACKMAN STREET
Steve P, Agent – We received a call from abutters notifying us of tree cutting & wetland filling at this address. They explained they had cut dead trees, removed the stumps & extended the culvert which then required filling. According to the accepted OoC those activities should not have been carried out. The OoC has not been signed off with a CoC. Line A5 of the OoC says “The GCC shall be notified if there is transfer of title” but we were not informed when the property was sold. The new owners were filling in the wetland.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – We had to do something. We can’t plow the snow as the road drops off suddenly and becomes a bobsled run. We can’t push it back any further. We have owned the property since 2001 – 2002 & 2003 were like the old bad winters. Our regular plow truck can’t plow it – if there is 8-9” on the ground you can’t tell where the edge is as it drops off. The plows and 3 other vehicles got stuck in 2003.
Carl S, GCC– In mud?
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – No, they went off the edge of the road. The oil truck won’t deliver down there as the road isn’t wide enough. (shows letter to confirm). The road wasn’t built wide enough for snow.
Carl S, GCC– Were you aware of the OoC on the property?
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – Yes, but the road itself is not wide enough. Can we seek forgiveness?
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – We wrote the GCC on Jan 6 with the as-built plan to show what’s out there. When there is a break in the weather we can look at the issue. There are snowbanks so they couldn’t see the edge of the roadway. Two activities were carried out: tree cutting – the plan shows where the trees were cut. Filling - Some fill was placed here on the plan where the agent refers to an extension of the pipe. The OoC allowed the roadway to be 12’ wide all the way thru. It is only 10’ wide in many places. Expanding it to 12’ would improve conditions. The edge of activity in the OoC is now marked on the plan – showing the trees within that area. There would’ve been grading there anyway with 2:1
slope.
Steve P, Agent – The as-built of that is 10’?
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – Yes. It is a gravel road – definition is not easy, it varies in width. When the original order was issued these trees should’ve been cut at that time. The roadway with 10’ trees should’ve been cut away then. We anticipated that there would be grading in that area of the plan.
Carl S, GCC– Yes but the way it was done is an issue – with the expiration of the OoC, etc. The trees may be in the way buy there is a methodology that you should have followed to get this done.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – Yes, we met with Allen Bennett on site for 2 hours.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – Beavers. This whole area now has hundreds of dying trees – this particular one was dead & in danger of falling on the road due to increasing water levels. It’s a safety issue.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – When that happens (shows photo of tree down on the road in 2000) we had to cut the tree off the road.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – It was a BVW at the time that the work was done but now the area has 2-3’ of water due to beavers.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – This is now permanent water unless we get rid of the beavers.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – Mr Beegan knows the activities shouldn’t have been done but what was done was less than the original plan. They accomplished the work under the order from GCC to get it up to the extent it should be to make their access safe. I can’t say why it wasn’t built as wide as was originally planned.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – We are not doing anything to the property except enhancing access to the house when it snows.
Carl S, GCC– Is there an EO on this?
Steve P, Agent – Only a Cease & Desist order signed by me.
Mike B/Paul N, GCC– This looks like it needs an NOI.
Steve P, Agent – The wetlands were last delineated in 2000.
Paul Beegan, Co-owner – It’s much worse now, very much deeper & lapping up against the side of the road.
GCC – Steve, sign the EO & get them to work towards an NOI.
MOTION to authorize the agent to issue a stop work EO against 74 Jackman St – Mike / Tom / Unam
COMMISSIONERS LOOP WELL
Reps: Brian Manter, Georgetown Water Commission; Glenn Smith, Georgetown Water Department
Brian Manter, Georgetown Water Commission – The Commissioners Well has high iron & manganese content – we planned to take it to be treated at the treatment plant & returned to the well site. The original plan to do was to do a directional drill thru the woods but we hit a snag – this boring plan shows what we intended (shows boring plan).
GCC – The question is can this be done underground? If it has to go overground it will have to be another filing. NHESP will have to be filed with again. You should exhaust all possibilities to take it under.
· Trying mud motors entirely – high cost but guaranteed – est $500k to $1m & prob a lot more.
· Change the line & try again with current technology – lowest probability of success, approx 30% chance at about $20k to test feasibility & $3-400k to complete if is possible
· Going above ground – at least $556k to get across the river, approx $700k, extremely destructive but guaranteed, take a lot longer amt of time
The contractors have to decide what process to follow.
Don Bade, Parker River Clean Water Association – The original OoC required monitoring by a 3rd party – PRCWA offered to do that. We may need a GCC appointment to do that.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – If this needs a new filing you need to check the working blackout dates & make sure they are appropriate.
Carl S- If this goes underground it doesn’t need a new filing. Overground is another matter & triggers whole process with GCC & NHESP.
Brian Manter, Georgetown Water Commission – We have to figure out what we are going to do. If all options fail & we have to go overground we will have to come back and re-file. Can this be handled with an amendment to the existing OoC?
GCC – No, it is way too different & would be a major change. The NHESP may say you have to do a year-long wildlife study.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN
Rep: Harry LaCortiglia, Open Space Committee Chair
MOTION to authorize the OSC to begin the process of creating an Open Space Recreation Plan for 2006 – Mike / Tom / Unam
Action: Quarterly updates from OSC.
CAMP DENISON APPOINTMENT
MOTION to appoint Herb Hubbard to the Camp Denison Committee for a period not to exceed 3 years – John / Paul / Unam
ACORN WAY OPEN SPACE
GCC should survey & examine the open space being donated. Ask Harry LaCotiglia to use the GCC GPS to determine the property boundaries.
102 POND STREET / 25 BAILEY LANE EO
Carl S, GCC– The property at 102 Pond Street has a long history with many violations. Now there are new contractors working with no GCC involvement.
Steve P, Agent – The contractor ignored a cease & desist order and carried out filling work. He was told not to do anything on whole property. The NHESP require a wildlife survey before they do any work but they are already filling within feet of a vernal pool.
MOTION to ratify the EOs against 102 Pond Street and 25 Bailey Lane as prepared by the agent – Paul / John / Unam
HEARINGS
256 EAST MAIN STREET (GCC-2004-056; DEP 161-0613) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Bill Manuel, Wetlands &Land Management; Jason Nadeau, Owner
Bill Manuel – We have given the GCC revised plans responding to comments from the last meeting 2 weeks ago.
Steve P, Agent – It’s all there as discussed.
MOTION to approve 256 E Main St (GCC-2004-56) with plan 1/13/06, Rev 5 – Tom / John / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
44 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-024; DEP 161-0632) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Greg Hochmuth, Glenmere Environmental
Greg Hochmuth – The applicants were asked to revise the plan to include restoration – we have doubled the restoration area, added 3 monuments 15-20’ apart, extra shrub plantings for the slope stabilization, with the shed removed and the area seeded & restored with wet seed mix. The plan date is 1/16/06.
Paul N, GCC– The OoC should specify also to stabilize the slope by the last Sono tube on the South side.
Steve P, Agent – How are you going to demo the shed? Don’t use heavy equip. When you demolish it the material has to be forward rather than back into the wetland.
Paul N, GCC– Removing the shed, adding markers and planting - this is all you can get out of a bad situation.
MOTION to accept the plan for 44 Elm Street dated 1/16/06 (GCC-2005-024) and lift the Cease & Desist EO against the property – Paul / John / 4 Yes, 1 No, 1 Abstain
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Paul / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
95 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-021; DEP 161-0626) ANRAD (Cont)
Reps: Mary Trudeau, Consultant; Ken Kumph, Applicant ; James Decoulos, Attorney; Marty Halloran, T-Square Design
James Decoulos – Last time there was a question about the scope of the watershed & hydrology. You requested a 3rd party review. This plan depicts the watershed he determined – we carried it across the street – it is now 3x larger. Mr Graham’s report says, based on his hydrology calculations, this area is not a state ILSF. Mr Halloran calculates that the watershed extends –it went originally from the berm of the street – now it is beyond the street & farther down the street with everything filtering in this direction. Based on state standards, without filtration, there is not sufficient volume of water to be a state ILSF. So we move into local consideration. The hydrology study says that with 10-year storm this watershed would
result in 9” deep for 29 hrs.
Steve P, Agent – All it said in the report was a 1-yr storm – it was submitted to Larry Graham & not to us except as an overview. This is new information to me.
Paul N, GCC– In our bylaw it says we need reports for 2, 5 & 10 yr storms
Marty Halloran – That was in the original report from the state ILSF calculations.
James Decoulos – That is not significant for wetland protection. What do we do about water draining off street. We have a letter from the building inspector re draining issues - any building permit would have conditions for catchbasins to accept drainage from the entire watershed – under the new driveway to the catchbasin. That would answer concerns as to what would control that drainage, what measures would be taken so there would be no runoff into neighboring property. The conditions expressed were in response to Mr Graham – the water comes all off the street into the catchbasin. The land gets flooded in frozen conditions but would not if there were catchbasins.
Steve P, Agent – This is an ANRAD. At this point we’re just working out if it is an ILSF or not.
James Decoulos – We are addressing concerns of the GCC & abutters.
Ken Kumph – I was told that if it is an ILSF there would be no building allowed there.
Paul N, GCC– We have never allowed a septic system within 100’ of a resource.
Ken Kumph - Glenn Closey (interim Building Inspector) looked at it with the Larry Graham report and said it would be a condition of the building permit.
James Decoulos – The question is, is there water there for a significant period of time? We say no – these are pervious soils & water would only stand for 29 hrs.
Larry Graham – I got original data from the applicant. At the site visit I looked at plans with respect to the drainage area as submitted to the GCC. My letter to the GCC re. drainage area was understated – the revised area is about 3 acres. My letter also included review of what I thought was before the GCC – I revised the drainage calculations with a 1 acre area & waited for the 2nd rd after new drainage area assessed. Next I said that I agreed that the area was not an ILSF under state determination. Under the Georgetown Bylaw this area could qualify as an ILSF. I didn’t survey to find the watershed – I looked at it & the applicant’s team recalculated. I was not asked to comment on the bylaw “significant period of time”. A significant period of time can be subjective. It depends on what purpose you are evaluating a basin.
Carl S, GCC– We are looking at it as a water system for a resource area. Where’s it go. What’s it do. What’s its function.
Larry Graham – I am not an environmentalist. I am mostly looking at detention basins. This doesn’t have an outlet until 4’ above the lawn area at the Elm St end. If you’re looking at a significant period of time for storage of water that’s creating a vernal pool situation or hydic soils situation … . I know I’m not answering your question. I don’t know what a significant period of time is.
Ken Kumph – Other periods of time are defined by the state – are there any comparisons? In the context of what you’re protecting?
Larry Graham – That’s not my field.
Paul N, GCC– We’re looking at the filling & dredging of an ILSF – not with quantitative numbers. It doesn’t specify how long it floods just that it is land subject to flooding. What are we trying to protect against? How long will it take to affect the property next door? Time is meaningless.
James Decoulos – The regulations say time. It has to have some bearing towards wetland protection.
Paul N, GCC– That’s too narrow a view of wetland protection. We are very concerned with flood control, water quality, watershed protection, etc
Ken Kumph – Are there hydric soils etc?
Paul N, GCC– What we’re looking for is land that is acting as a water sink – a natural detention basin.
Marty Halloran – You want it to stay a long period of time.
Carl S, GCC– Yes, we have empirical data to show that.
Marty Halloran – You don’t have a flooding situation now.
Paul N, GCC– No, not now.
Marty Halloran – In 10 yr storm it would be 9”.
Carl S, GCC– Did you calculate for a 100 yr storm?
Marty Halloran – No.
Larry Graham – 9” in a 10-year storm is correct – the plans given to me include infiltration but it won’t happen at all times of the year. I don’t know if Marty Halloran has done calculations without infiltration.
Mary Trudeau – I submitted a letter re the significant period of time from an environmental point of view. I don’t know anywhere that 29 hrs is considered insignificant. The state law is fair. But everywhere would be subject to your bylaw on a frozen day. It bothers me that there isn’t a physical area you can calculate with in the bylaw.
Carl S, GCC- We quantify a volume - every where & every situation is different. We have empirical data that shows water does stand out there in certain situations.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – Depressions as defined in the bylaw presumed are ILSF to protect the environment as they perc. Does the period of time that this holds water, if it were a designed basin, would it remove pollutants from the water?
Larry Graham – It’s a problem - as with road runoff, ¼ of that area is impervious roads & roofs, ¾ is lawn – from an engineering point of view, you would have to be putting in other components to clean the water before it could be recharged.
Steve P, Agent – Half of this ILSF would have a septic & leaching field in it.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett Street – Does it now remove pollutants from the water?
Carl S- We have a short term natural detention basin that allows water to filter into the ground.
James Decoulos – The town is discharging water onto this property.
Paul N, GCC– The applicant was told that by the Planning Board when the lot was sub-divided.
Ken Kumph –What if put in curbing to direct the water away from my property?
Steve P, Agent – That doesn’t solve the problem of allowing the water to filter before it goes into the river area.
John Howland, Abutter, 105 Elm St – I have many pictures of this situation. (Submits picture of a man canoeing in the area). The flooding lasts 3 weeks or so with a 100-yr storm.
Brad Perry, Abutter, 89 Elm St – This 8x10 picture is one I took on March 23, 2001. That amount of flooding occurs every Spring. My concern is what will happen on the street & to abutters if there is this amount of flooding & no mechanism to take care of it. 29 hrs is not nearly long enough if there are frozen conditions. Under what conditions will that drywell work? Even if it’s frozen?
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – It is prudent to look at the documentation by the engineer that says that the period of time the area holds water is significant enough to remove pollutants that may end up there. You are only determining what the resource areas are. If there is any confusion, on the plan the area you’re talking about is not state but local ILSF.
MOTION to issue an ORAD in respect to the ANRAD for 95 Elm St (GCC-2005-21) approving the wetland delineation including the ILSF in the SE quadrant of the property – Paul / Tom / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
MOTION to close the hearing – Tom / Mike / Unam
| 
