GCC MEETING SUMMARY
May 4, 2006
GENERAL BUSINESS
PENTUCKET ACRES ENHANCEMENTS
The Stewardship Committee for Pentucket Acres CA has put together a plan to complete the trail out to the end by the pond. They’re also suggesting adding a bench and viewing area out at the pond end. Plan approved by GCC with work to be supervised by the agent.
GCC approved expenditure (not exceeding $300) for native plantings along the property line between the conservation area & the abutters’ property.
GCC FILING FEES
The GCC lost $7,000 pa in this year’s budget cuts. Our income could be supplemented with a filing fee increase. We don’t want to cut the services offered by the department. We have the ability to partially fund ourselves through fees so we want to examine that potential. GCC will discuss with the selectboard.
CAMP DENISON
We have many concerns about the use of the road at Camp Denison including the volume of traffic (including buses during the Workshop in the Woods weeks), the extent of the paved portion of the road, speed, the amount of impervious surface, erosion. We need a real erosion control plan and will talk to the Camp Denison Committee about their proposal for road improvements.
The Camp Denison Revolving Account was supposed to be increased to $7,000 but the article was written incorrectly for Town Meeting. We will bring that up again correctly at Fall Town Meeting and support a change to $7,000.
HEARINGS SUMMARY
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (New)
Construction of duplex, grading, driveways and utilities within 75’ of BVW.
Detailed discussions about the prospect of stormwater runoff onto abutting properties due to changes in topography through grading and construction. Abutters reported flooding in the front of the lot. Applicants say all runoff will stay on their lot. They will return with further investigation of the quantity of runoff and the capacity of the storm-cepters and catchbasins.
The revised plan will show: the house moved farther away from the wetland; additional channelizing in the S & W; additional bounds at 50’; specify on the plan that large trees are not to be cut within 50 – 75’; details of the septic system.
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
Perc testing within 100’ of BVW.
The BOH says about 50 years ago the owners were paying taxes on a buildable lot but the house was falling down & the owners let Erie 4 burn it. Deb Rogers (BOH) talked to the state and was told that there is a new Title 5 timeline – a point at which a lot can’t be accepted as having a pre-existing house if the house has been gone for a specific length of time. The proposed test pits are outside the 100’ buffer but there is a perennial stream which carries a solid 200’ buffer zone for a septic system if the BOH decides that this is not a pre-existing system (ie. a repair to an existing system).
GCC advised the applicant that they should obtain the variances they need from all other boards before they pay for a third-party wetland review of the property.
STONE ROW – LOT 14 (GCC-2005-031; DEP 161-0635) ANRAD (Cont)
Delineate 8,226 linear feet of BVW and 2,016 linear feet of Riverfront Area.
Discussions regarding whether the stream in the North is a perennial or intermittent stream. Abutter contributions regarding many years of observations of the perennial nature of the stream. GCC also witnessed the stream running during their site visit despite very dry weather. Abutters point out that it has been the second driest Spring on record and the stream is still flowing well. Applicants are contesting the perennial definition of the stream.
65R THURLOW STREET (GCC-2005-032; DEP 161-0636) ANRAD (Cont)
Review over 3,400 linear feet of delineated Resource Area.
There are multiple wetland resource areas on site – BVW, bank, intermittent stream, bank with the pond. The flagging was determined by vegetation, Hydrophitic soils, hydrology, and slope. Applicants asked for more time to establish the limits of the vernal pool habitat. There were several vernal pools seen on the site walk – both on site & off. Continued for applicants to gather information about wetlands outside 200’ of property boundary.
END OF SUMMARY
GCC MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, John Bell, Mark Gauthier, Charles Waters, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
PENTUCKET ACRES ENHANCEMENTS
Steve P, GCC Agent– The Stewardship Committee for Pentucket Acres CA has put together a plan to complete the trail out to the end by the pond. They’re also suggesting adding a bench and viewing area out at the pond end. (Shows plans)
Paul N, GCC – We’re having a lot of issues with residents cutting trees etc by the ponds. Rather than cutting a viewing area how about adding a 4-5’ high deck to enable people to see over the bushes. That would get around the need to cut / transplant bushes for a view.
Carl S, GCC – Yes, we need to be careful allowing the cutting of plants at the shoreline. However, that platform might have to be quite high to see over the reeds etc.
Steve P, GCC Agent– I’ll ask Tim Vaters to look into it as a possibility.
MOTION to approve expenditure for plantings along line with abutter not to exceed $300 – Mark / Paul / 6 Aye, 1 Abstain
Steve P, GCC Agent– There is also a large grassy field by the parking area, it has been proposed to plant natives there to provide a border at the edge of the parking lot.
Tom H, GCC – We’re also looking at putting wildflowers there too.
GCC – That would be fine as long as Steve is overseeing the work. Hold off on the transplanting until we get more information about how many shrubs etc we can buy for the area.
GCC FILING FEES
Carl S, GCC – The GCC lost $7,000 pa in this year’s budget cuts. We could potentially supplement our income with a fee increase. We could discuss it with the selectment & see if they are in favor of that. We don’t want to cut the services offered by the department. Other departments are getting increased workloads & cuts in budget. We have the ability to partially fund ourselves through fees so we want to examine that potential. Let’s also look at increasing Steve’s hours to full-time coverage.
Mark G, GCC – The town picked up a larger percentage of Steve’s salary but we lost another part of our funding in the cuts?
Carl S, GCC – Yes. It would be a simple matter to raise our own fees but we have to work out how to channel them to an increased salary for Steve from that account.
Mark G, GCC – We’re looking to increase Steve’s hours to 40 per week?
Steve P, GCC Agent– Yes, that could include the hours I work on site walks at the weekends, evening meetings, etc. I could do site walks etc on Fridays when Town Hall is closed.
Carl S, GCC – We need to make sure we don’t deplete our funds with this. Let’s look into it more closely. We need to look at a model based on last year’s fees. How would an increase in hours affect the income from our fees?
Steve P, GCC Agent– I’ll find out what we need to do to get that done & put together a model based on last year’s fees.
CAMP DENISON
GCC- We have many concerns about the use of the road at Camp Denison including the volume of traffic (including buses during the Workshop in the Woods weeks), the extent of the paved portion of the road, speed, the amount of impervious surface, erosion. We need a real erosion control plan. Are they paving before the bridge? After the bridge?
Carl S, GCC – Their Revolving Account was supposed to be increased to $7,000 but the article was written incorrectly for Town Meeting. We will bring that up again correctly at Fall Town Meeting and support a change to $7,000.
HEARINGS
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (New)
Reps: George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – This is a 1.5 acres site. The delineation was agreed in December 2005. There is a wetland within the site & across the roadway. There is a potential vernal pool within the wetland itself. This proposal is to construct a duplex with ¾ of the building outside the buffer zone. A portion of the building is located 85’ from an ILSF onsite. Access to the lot is from Silvermine Lane with one drive accessing each unit. Each unit has a small deck off the rear. The septic is at the rear of the lot outside the buffer zone. The utilities come in from the roadway in separate conduits. The houses are 28’ –32’ from the roadway. There is natural runoff on site, it now primarily
enters the ILSF at the middle of the lot. A small area of runoff at the edge goes onto the abutters property. We are proposing to grade to leave a low spot in front so the runoff goes around the side of the house, to the septic at the back and into the wetland. This will increase the overland runoff through the natural vegetation. The septic system hasn’t been designed yet, the soil testing still needs to be done. The reserve area has been defined and is shown on the plan. The roof drains into an infiltration unit. That should capture the 100-yr rain flow off of the roof. This will also reduce the runoff from added impervious surface on site.
Paul N, GCC – The house is raised by 4’ from the topo. Won’t that create runoff towards the abutters’ property? Are you sure you won’t flow onto to the abutter property?
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Yes. The storm-cepter is for the roof runoff only. Everything else is going down the swale to the back.
Mark G, GCC – Can you explain how the system works – these are only 4” PVC drainlines.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Roof has gutters to the downspouts that will drain just below the surface. We pick up all the downspouts & pipe them into the PVC pipe. A 4” pipe is more than adequate to catch the runoff from the roof – all 4 pipes. We specifically use that size pipe to prevent clogging etc.
Steve P, GCC Agent– The floodplain is in roughly the same area as the BVW. On ArcView it shows it going across the road.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – The floodplains were defined prior to the road construction. In the RDA we provided calculations showing that the floodplain does not cross the roadway. It’s hard to tell whether it did or not before the road. Not all areas were done by hydraulic calculations – some just follow the 10’ contours. There is a difference in the maps due to an increase in accuracy.
Carl S, GCC – We need to investigate that issue farther to close the loop.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – From the original ANRAD filing I took the FEMA maps & laid them into MASSGIS mapping. The co-ordinates line up, & based on those maps that correspond to each other the elevation was at 95’ – 4’ below the roadway.
Paul N, GCC – What is the 100-year flood elevation?
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – We extrapolated that from our other data. When the floodplain is not defined it can be found on the FEMA website.
Paul N, GCC – The sidewalk is at 99.03 elevation according to the nail in the benchmark on the sidewalk.
Steve P, GCC Agent– Jack Moultrie (Highway Supervisor) describes significant flooding from North Street and Silver Mine Lane onto this property. It floods heavily in the north.
Paul N, GCC – The flow will be from the property to the wetland?
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Our runoff is staying on our site.
Carl S, GCC – There is a clear depression here. A significant amount of water would be needed to fill that area.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – A small amount of impervious surface will not cause 1.5 acre of land to flood.
Mike B, GCC – This has a lot of area to drain to.
Carl S, GCC – Can you slide the house out of the 100’ buffer zone? You would need zoning setbacks.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – It could go over, but don’t know if it can go completely out. We can’t move the septic back. The house can move somewhat. We can look at that to maybe make 90 – 95’.
Paul N, GCC – That will mean additional impervious area with a longer driveway though.
Mike B, GCC – I’m looking at the wetland and vernal pool across the road & thinking of access to the vernal pool from this area. If you slide it back there would be better access.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – We don’t want to crowd too closely to the next house. We could save some trees for a buffer between two properties.
Al Watkins, Abutter, 1a Silver Mine Lane – Could it be moved back?
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Not without retesting the soil. But not way back here.
Mark G, GCC – Why does it have to be a duplex? The land is being stretched to handle that.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – That’s what we designed.
Suzanne Macleod, Abutter, 1a Silver Mine Lane – There are no other duplexes in that area.
GCC – That’s a Planning Board issue. This does not violate many setbacks of ours.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – It doesn’t violate any zoning regulations.
Mike B, GCC – It has to be in harmony with the neighborhood – that’s something the zoning board can enforce. You should look into that.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – We will put in two 50’ Do Not Disturb monuments.
Paul N, GCC – Maybe we should make them leave the trees there.
GCC – Yes, we don’t want them to denude the site. You should try to have it left in its natural form. Noise from the road will be increased if they take lots of trees down.
Paul N, GCC – There is a healthy stand of tall trees within the 75’ buffer zone. The key is to maintain those. We could say in the OoC that the agent will approve which trees should be saved & cut.
Mark G, GCC – Do the driveways have to be asphalt? We could cut down on the impervious surface if they were a different material.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – We have reduced the runoff already. That would certainly reduce it further. But it is sandy soil so it wouldn’t have much of an effect. There are catchbasins at low points in the road to get the runoff.
GCC – We would like to see options for moving the location of the house farther away.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – The actual building hasn’t been designed yet but we have the size of the footprint & where it will go.
GCC – As long as it fits within that footprint.
Joe Flynn, Abutter, 173 North St – That runoff around the septic – is that close to the property line? There is standing water in heavy rain there now. Once my lot flooded & went into that lot. I’m the house on the mound on the left. Will you run the water around that area? It looks like it’s getting close.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Yes, there is a slight depression in this area. The septic area will be raised up about 4’ and have a natural channel running it around.
Paul N, GCC – Can you make the channel around the 2 sides of the house larger & allow it to work better?
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – Yes. George indicated, at this point, that they would create a type of ‘grassy swale’ around the west and south sides of the house and draining into the ILSF on the side of the property facing North Street.
Joe Flynn, Abutter, 173 North St – I’ve seen it flood very much. There are ducks in the front sometimes – the culvert is equalizing the water between the 2 lots now. I have seen flooding in that front area.
Mike B, GCC – As long as it is channeled into the wetland – there is a model in their hydrology about that.
Suzanne Macleod, Abutter, 1a Silver Mine Lane – That culvert is on our property. What areas of trees are you retaining? Is there danger of runoff onto our lot? We are concerned that this is a duplex.
Carl S, GCC – We are planning to save the large trees to north.
George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering – We are channelizing all the water away so it stays on our lot. This is a lot of record & we don’t have to go to the Planning Board. It can be a duplex. You can speak to the Building Inspector for information about the process.
GCC – We are looking for: the house moved away; additional channelizing in the S & W; additional bounds at 50’; specify on the plan that large trees not to be cut within 50 – 75’; details of the septic system.
MOTION to continue to June 1 at 9:00 pm – Tom / John / Unam
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
Perc testing within 100’ of BVW.
Reps: Pam Margaritis, Owner
Pam Margaritis, Owner – In October you denied what I had brought in. But on Jan 27, 2005 you did approve the test pits & a letter was to have been sent to the Board of Health authorizing the test pitting. It wasn’t sent. The BOH originally said this was an existing 2-bed house. It is a non-conforming lot. The 3rd party review was not done.
Steve P, GCC Agent– That’s because you said you didn’t want to pay for it and we cancelled it.
Pam Margaritis, Owner – But I already had a wetland scientist do it. The NOI was filed in October 2004. The test pits were approved in January 2005. You never mentioned a 3rd party review.
Steve P, GCC Agent– In 1890 was a house there. The BOH says about 50 years ago the owners were paying taxes on a buildable lot but the house was falling down & they let Erie 4 burn it. Deb Rogers (BOH) talked to the state today and was told that there is a new Title 5 timeline – there is a point at which a lot can’t be accepted as having a house if the house has been gone for a specific length of time. So BOH won’t sign off on this septic as the house has been gone for too long. The proposed test pits are outside the 100’ buffer. It’s clear that the stream on site is a perennial stream. That means it has a 200’ buffer zone for a septic system without question.
Pam Margaritis, Owner – Next door’s system went in within 150’.
Mike B, GCC – If you are replacing an existing system that would be allowed. But new construction always has to be kept outside the buffer.
Paul N, GCC – Reads letter from Jack Moultrie (Planning Board) regarding unconforming lot dimensions of 541 North Street parcel.
Charles W, GCC – It’s clear you have other issues with other boards. You should check to see whether this project can go forward with them before you come back here & pay for a 3rd party review.
John B, GCC – You need to go to the BOH, Building Inspector, and the ZBA given that the PB says there are zoning issues. Just because we say yes doesn’t mean the other departments will.
Paul N, GCC – It sounds like you will need variances from 3 other boards. You may not get a variance from us on the riverfront. Don’t spend any money until you’re got the others approved.
MOTION to continue to June 15, 7:30 – John / Mike / Unam
STONE ROW
Reps: Larry Beals, Consultant; Jill Mann, Attorney; TJ Conti, Owner; George Agganis, Owner
Larry Beals, Consultant – (Shows plans for locus & details of wetland boundaries.) We walked the site with the agent to get a start on our plan. There were no commitments but what we agreed was fairly accurate. The independent review has been done. We joined him in the field & came to broad agreement. We wanted a report from him by now.
Steve P, GCC Agent– He has emailed a description but it is not the official report. He points out flags to be moved and some spots where things need to be changed on the site plan.
Larry Beals, Consultant – We don’t agree that the flags should be moved.
Carl S, GCC – We’ll give you the report so you can see exactly what we’re talking about.
Jill Mann, Attorney – We would like to go out in the field with your reviewer next time to work out the flag questions with him.
Larry Beals, Consultant – We wanted to go out with him in the first instance but he was done by time we got there.
Carl S, GCC – We will give the applicant the report & if you have issues we can go over it together. You will get a full report & a flagged plan.
Steve P, GCC Agent– There are also other resources to be added – for instance, a vernal pool by the A series of flags.
Larry Beals, Consultant – He led us to believe there were no other resources. He said he did not believe there were vernal pools.
Steve P, GCC Agent– When we have the report we can address all the issues together.
Paul N, GCC – We need to have the stream and vernal pools added.
Larry Beals, Consultant – What kind of stream?
GCC – There is a fast running stream to the North that we observed on our site walk.
Tim Ruh, Abutter, 8 Stone Row – How could a stream be missed in the Beals plan?
Larry Beals, Consultant – What we have shown are resources – river, BVW – they are talking about stream channels or vernal pools within wetland areas.
Carl S, GCC – You may have listed it as intermittent but we list it as perennial.
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St –Are you showing perennial streams on that land?
Larry Beals, Consultant - Yes, Wheeler Brook.
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – I grew up on this land. I could show the board several fresh water springs in that area. The stream isn’t listed as perennial?
Carl S, GCC – We did see one.
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – There’s an old culvert there – I can only remember one time in my life that that stream dried up.
Larry Beals, Consultant – The DEP looks at the watershed. How much is sand & gravel, water bearing.
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – There is a good clear running, sandy bottomed stream.
GCC – We saw that too.
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – I know of many vernal pools too. Where that stream meets Wheeler Brook, it has only dried up once in all those years.
Paul N, GCC – Do you recall a stream running thru this northern area?
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – That field (I used to hay those fields) as you drive into Stone Row – you couldn’t plow or hay it early in the year because it was so wet. The water flows right out of that hill. There are no trees so the water would run right out of it. It’s the same with the field that is used as a stump dump down by the highway.
Mike B, GCC – The streams we saw were running very well and it has been very dry.
Paul N, GCC – That was way before the rains – it was very dry.
Larry Beals, Consultant – What we need to do is produce geological evidence .
Gary Fowler, Abutter, 419 North St – We capped off a spring in the old highway rest area. It was a concrete cap. There is also another spring just off the field. That brook flows into the Parker River constantly. It’s a major watershed for the Parker River.
Larry Beals, Consultant – If you get 4 days with no flow in the stream it is an intermittent stream.
Carol Maulstead, Abutter, 9 Stone Row – Remember that this has been 2nd driest spring on record.
Kevin, Abutter, 64 Jewett Street – I live near Wheeler Brook. During rains the water pours across my driveway. It comes out of the construction site into a wetland area between 64 Jewett & 66 Jewett. It comes right across the top of the culverts and makes my property very wet. I had to move my driveway 30’ away – the DEP said I had to. Rainfall causes it. It is lower than the proposed construction.
MOTION to continue to June 15, 8:00 – Tom / John / Unam
65R THURLOW STREET
Reps: James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental; Gary Evans, Attorney
James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental – We have multiple wetland resource areas on site – BVW, bank, intermittent stream, bank with the pond. The flagging was determined by vegetation, Hydrophitic soils, hydrology, and slope. We need more time to establish the limits of the vernal pool habitat. There were several vernal pools seen on the site walk – both on site & off. I can’t confirm them now but need time to observe those & look for breeding evidence.
Paul N, GCC – You were supposed delineate the resources 200’ off property.
James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental – I didn’t have permission from the adjacent landowners so didn’t get that information. Now I realize there was a BVW within 100’ of property so added it.
Carl S, GCC – You can have additional time to do that as we’re waiting for the report from the 3rd party reviewer.
James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental – We’re asking for acceptance without the 3rd party review.
Steve P, GCC Agent– You should have the full review next week. Some flags need to be moved so you should wait for that.
James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental – It’s already been done?
Carl S, GCC – Yes. That’s our standard protocol. You’ll have it shortly & then we can compare.
Mike B, GCC – We’d like to see you carry the resource buffer lines off property 200’ all the way around.
Gary Evans, Attorney – What are you looking for? We don’t have permission to get that information.
Carl S, GCC – We need to know what resources might be impacted offsite so the project doesn’t cause problems on the neighbor’s property. We need to know what resources there are out there.
Gary Evans, Attorney – Nothing is being proposed in that area at all.
Carl S, GCC – If you can’t get access to that site we need a letter saying they won’t let you on.
Mark G, GCC – The regulations say you need to provide that information “regardless” of whether you plan to work there or not.
MOTION to continue June 15, 9:00 – Tom / Mike / Unam
| 
