GCC MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2006
GENERAL BUSINESS
HEARINGS
GCC MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Charles Waters, Mark Gauthier, John Bell, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to approve the minutes of July 13 with changes – Mark / John / Unam
MOTION to approve the minutes of July 27 with changes – Mark / John / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain (Carl Shreder)
MOTION to approve the minutes of August 10 with changes – John / Mike / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain (Mark Gauthier)
14 TAYLOR STREET - EO
Steve P, GCC Agent – I received reports regarding digging from the restaurant across the pond. They said they saw a bobcat digging “in” the pond. The owners had carved a road from the steep backyard down an embankment to the pond, leveling the wetland & bank into the pond. They had excavated soil into a berm, pushed it down the hill forward into the wetland associated with the pond. They also flattened the bank & filled that into the wetland.
Carl S, GCC – Did you speak to the owner?
Steve P, GCC Agent – Yes, and I issued a Cease & Desist order. They said they wanted to get rid of poison ivy. The EO says they must cease & desist all excavation work, provide a professionally designed restoration plan, install plantings 1 month later & provide reports on the survival of the restoration every 2 years. The EO has specific dates for when each stage must be completed.
Carl S, GCC – They need to come to a meeting.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It looks like they’re creating a beach – if they want access to the pond they should file. I’m not against them getting access to the pond.
John B, GCC – There was a vacant house on site for 15 years & it was very overgrown.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We signed off on the building permit for the house as it was outside the 100’.
Carl S, GCC – Who was the contractor? We want to speak to them as well.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I will find out and ask them to come in. There were tire marks 5’ from the water - this is 20’ x 60’ disturbance within a couple of inches of the pond.
Paul N, GCC – We need specific dates for when the fines will start accruing.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I have worked out the fines already. On the cease & desist if there is any activity the fines get larger every day. Missing the planting dates is less of a fine – I don’t want to cripple people financially.
Mark G, GCC – How long have they lived there?
Steve P, GCC Agent – A long time. They lived in the other lot for a long time & then moved here. They got our letter last summer but that deals with tree & brush cutting. The buffers are larger here as Rock Pond is a great pond.
Paul N, GCC – So that means anyone doing anything around the pond has to file.
Mark G, GCC – Send another letter about all activities.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The letter said there could be no cutting of vegetation – they knew it wasn’t allowed.
Carl S, GCC – Especially if they were using a bobcat.
Mike B, GCC – Will they have enough time this planting season for this?
Carl S, GCC – The slope has to be stabilized.
Mike B, GCC – Work on stabilization for this season & planting for next.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Shrubs would go in very well now too. I gave them a month – they can get a planting plan by then & take another month to plant – there is time this season to do that.
Mark G, GCC – Can we have them seed that slope this week?
Steve P, GCC Agent – I can tell them to do that. It needs grading back to the way it was – we need to work out the way it was & determine how much was disturbed. The site needs more assessment. If they filled in a wetland they need to put that back to the way it was.
Mike B, GCC – We should be able to see changes in the soil where the fill went in.
HEARINGS
24 SPOFFORD AVENUE (GCC-2006-19) NOI (Cont)
Rep: Jim Disabatino, Owner
Carl S, GCC – We’re looking at this NOI as the result of an original EO. At the last meeting there was discussion about the deck. We asked the Commissioners to think about how you wanted to go forward with this. We also asked the applicant to consider modifications to the plan.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I did write an EO for the completion of the driveway. That work can go forward. It needs to be restored to the original grade. We’re only dealing with the deck now.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I’m having trouble getting the contractor back for the driveway – I called but can’t get him back. I’ll let you know when we’ll be out there working.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We’re back to the deck issue. Do you have any comments?
Jim Disabatino, Owner - I have nothing further to add except to go over what I had said before. There has been no environmental damage & there will be none if it’s allowed to complete. I have explained everything. I’ve answered all the questions. There was no intent to deceive. I was just trying to improve my house – the valuation rate for taxes is higher on the pond so I pay more.
Carl S, GCC – That may be true but it’s outside the realm of our concerns.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I am trying to get more enjoyment out of the pond without doing any damage to the environment – to the slope, the animals or the vegetation. I haven’t disturbed anything except two wheelbarrows of dirt.
Carl S, GCC – In the original OOC the deck appeared to be much smaller. If that was such a big issue why did you agree to that OOC filed 3 years ago?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I had decided then that there was only going to be a deck on one side of the house. My girlfriend suggested changing it to a wrap-around deck to come out 10’ on the side and 10’ on the pond side. I didn’t think it was a big deal. I didn’t know it would be a problem. I had only wanted a deck on the street side but I thought it would be nice around the pond side of the house.
Charles W, GCC – I recall we asked you to consider whether you would want to possibly put the deck in another direction. You were hesitant, but I thought you agreed to at least consider it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – That would require digging more holes than what is on pond side now. I also need equipment to do it to dig out the 4-5 piles and footings on the pond side.
Carl S, GCC – We need to make this clear, as we tried to at the last meeting. A denial will mean that you need to take the deck down. That would be disturbance and that’s why we need resolution. There may be some disturbance whichever way we go.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Unless you agree to let me go forward as it is and you don’t order me to take anything down there will be a major disturbance of the soil and the surroundings. I will be major, you can ask Steve.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I disagree completely. You can dig those out as gently as you want.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – What, are you going to use a tablespoon to dig them out? I got to get a piece of heavy equipment in there.
Mark G, GCC – How did you dig them in?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I put them in with a 2-man augur.
Mark G, GCC – So you didn’t disturb anything when you put them in?
Jim Disabatino, Owner –No.
Mark G, GCC - Are they footed?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – No.
Mark G, GCC – OK, so they can be pulled right out.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – With a piece of machinery, yes.
Mark G, GCC – Straight up.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Yes, with a piece of machinery. It’s going to disrupt the soil.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I don’t think we should be concerned with the damage that might occur from leaving them or digging them out. I see the damage being caused long-term by the deck staying is greater than the damage digging them out. Short-term damage, if you go in there and rip them out in a month the replacement seed will take, you’ll never know they were there. That’s a month of damage, or disturbed soil. If we leave it there in the long term the light will be cut out, there will be no growth, there will be more erosion. There’s the precedent of a deck being allowed that close to the pond. I don’t think we should just say to leave it because there’s less damage, in the future someone could build a house right next to it. If we had to
get rid of that house it would be a lot of damage.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I don’t think there will be long term damage there.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I do.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Are you a biologist?
Steve P, GCC Agent – Yes sir.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Well I don’t think there will be any long-term damage there. I’ve disturbed, as I said before, only 2 wheelbarrows full of dirt when put it in. Once those footings were placed there was dirt put back around them. I haven’t touched them since. There is no soil erosion there at all.
Mark G, GCC – When did the silt fence go in?
Steve P, GCC Agent – The day after I delivered the EO.
Mark G, GCC – So there was no silt fence when you put those pilings in.
Steve P, GCC Agent – There was no silt fence installed for either the deck or driveway. The driveway was a huge amount of soil and no erosion control was put in until after I issued the EO.
Mark G, GCC – We weren’t concerned then about all that soil from the driveway, why are we concerned now? There was a large pile of soil there with no silt fence.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – That’s right. The driveway work was done 2 or 3 days prior to the silt fence going up and there was no erosion into the pond. We hadn’t had any serious rain for about a month before. After the silt fence went up the rain came & the driveway flooded because it was at a lower grade. The water came right down the street and right into the driveway, the grade of the driveway was not there. The asphalt and underlayment had been moved.
Paul N, GCC – There was no driveway in the original OOC.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Steve told me to file a new NOI because the old one had expired. The old one did not contain anything about the driveway.
Paul N, GCC – My question is, why didn’t you file a NOI when you went to do that as well as adding onto the deck? When you did the wraparound you knew you were adding something new to the structure, a larger deck. If I look at the original drawing and talk to the people who actually approved it the illusion that was presented was that the deck was not going to go past the end of the house. It’s drawn on the plan to the end of the house only.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – There was no intent to deceive anybody.
Paul N, GCC – It is, the drawing is deceptive.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I’m not a professional engineer & only did what I thought I had to do.
Paul N, GCC – That’s not the way I understand it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – There was no intent to deceive anybody. I’m not going to draw a drawing thinking people will approve it and then go ahead and build whatever I want to build.
Paul N, GCC – That’s exactly what it looks like.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – That’s not the case sir and I resent you saying it.
Mike B, GCC – It is reasonable to believe that if the Commission sees a diagram it’s reasonable for us to assume it is going to be done the way it is shown, and no further from the house. If I gave you this picture, wouldn’t you assume that it wouldn’t come beyond the house?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I would have to take measurements. Which is something that was not done.
Paul N, GCC – The Commission before assumed it was correct.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – The Commission should’ve asked questions instead of just asking where are the haybales going.
Carl S, GCC – We should give the applicant some leeway as he isn’t a professional engineer and we’re trying to do them a favor in that sense.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I would appreciate something like that. I always thought the Commission was supposed to work with the homeowner not against them. Taking the deck down would cause more damage.
Carl S, GCC – So what kind of mitigation are you proposing?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I’m not proposing anything. You said you would think about it for 2 weeks.
Carl S, GCC – If you look at the record you’ll see that you were also going to think about it for 2 weeks.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I have. I am not going to do anything on my own. If you issue a denial to the permit as it stands then I will do what I need to do.
Charles W, GCC – Have you come with any new information? We’ve talked about all this two weeks ago, we wanted you to come back and see if you had any additional thoughts now. I thought we were all set to vote, then we talked about how a vote would mean potentially taking down the entire deck. Last time we said you needed to decide how you want to go forward.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I explained everything. Why there was no permit in place, why the drawing on the original NOI was the way it was.
Carl S, GCC – The Commission might entertain a deck the size of the original deck as it was approved. We were at the point of making a vote and I was trying to give both sides a pause to evaluate.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I don’t know what else to do, I’m stuck. My contractor is threatening to pull out if I don’t get this resolved very soon.
Mike B, GCC – So you don’t want to go back to the original deck size & placement?
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I can’t go back to the original deck. I would have to tear it down. It’s not just put up with nails – it’s bolted to the house. All the joists in the deck have hangers on them
Paul N, GCC – Why did you do all that work without a proper filing? This is key. The whole idea of this Commission is to be able to regulate anything that happens within 100’ of the wetlands. In this case he knew enough to file an NOI the first time. Then when he wanted to replace the driveway and add onto the deck somehow it got lost. If we had seen it ahead of time certainly the driveway wouldn’t have been a problem. Even with the deck, we have worked with people on decks.
Mark G, GCC – That’s right, we have. My point is that we should pretend the deck is not there – would we allow this deck to be there from a conservation perspective?
Mike B, GCC – That’s not the question. The next question is to say what if everybody on the pond has the same idea. We’ll build it and the Commission will let it go by. If you approve one, why not everybody’s?
Mark G, GCC – We can’t approve it just because it exists. What if it wasn’t there. If it came here as an NOI what would we have said? That’s where we’re at. We weren’t given an opportunity or asked if it would be approved before you did it.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – I think I’ve been honest in telling you everything I know.
Carl S, GCC – What are you willing to compromise on? I’m trying to get the Commission to compromise and you’re saying “I won’t compromise on anything.”
Jim Disabatino, Owner – We’re getting into severe financial hardship. If you order me to take it down it involves a tremendous amount of work & equipment to pull the footings out of the ground. That will cause more disruption than leaving them there.
Mark G, GCC – Our agent advises that the disruption would be temporary. We have to take that advice that it would be temporary.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – If I leave them there will be no disruption.
Mark G, GCC - That’s not true. Absolutely no disruption simply isn’t true.
Steve P, GCC Agent – There is a long-term cumulative effect. I’m not even saying it would be a huge amount. I’m just saying that if it impacts it a little bit that’s the cumulative effect.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – What effect are you talking about?
Steve P, GCC Agent - Blocking sunlight, less vegetation, more erosion … that’s the cumulative effect. More exposed soil, a little more erosion. Cumulative effect.
Jim Disabatino, Owner – This isn’t a sandy bank – it’s a grassy bank.
MOTION to deny the NOI at 24 Spofford Ave Chap 161-2 – Charles / Paul /
Jim Disabatino, Owner – Before you vote I have another option. There is another way to support the deck by putting cantilever arms from the base of the house to the edge of deck - as an amendment to the existing NOI. It would be attached to the concrete by means of a saddle.
Steve P, GCC Agent – You still have to remove the pilings. That doesn’t solve my problems with the project.
Charles W, GCC – That doesn’t alleviate anything.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It just changes how it’s being supported.
Mike B, GCC – And the deck is still beyond the footprint of the house.
Mark G, GCC – Would we consider letting him have a small deck by the windows where he wanted the slider?
Charles W, GCC – That’s not up to us to consider. Alternative proposals need to come from the applicant.
MOTION to deny the NOI at 24 Spofford Ave Chap 161-2 – Charles / Paul /
Carl Shreder, GCC – Let’s be clear. The motion has been stated for both decks?
Paul N, GCC – For all construction that has occurred.
Charles – Yes, all construction.
Steve – We gave the applicant a chance to modify this plan to take off the additional deck and keep the original one as was shown previously. We gave him that chance but he didn’t want to go there. The plan hasn’t been modified. So it is for everything.
MOTION to deny the NOI at 24 Spofford Avenue under the Georgetown Wetlands Protection Bylaw Chapter 161-2 Jurisdiction; Chapter 14.1 Minimum Required No Disturbance Zones; Chapter 15.2 Required Minimum Setbacks; Chapter 16.2 Setback and "No Disturbance Zone" Exceptions – Charles / Paul / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mark / Unam
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Pam Margaritis, Owner
Pam Margaritis, Owner – You asked us to go to the other boards before coming back to you. I have a letter from the BOH dated July 25. We had a hearing with the BOH and were approved to go forward as a repair/upgrade under Title 5 as we applied before the regulation changes were made.
Steve P, GCC Agent – This was approved under the BOH but not our regulations.
Carl S, GCC – How is it a repair after 50 years? How can they say it’s been an abandoned system for ½ century but it’s a repair?
Steve P, GCC Agent – The filing came in before the regulations changed. The DEP added a timeline to the regulation but this filing came in beforehand.
Carl S, GCC – You filed with us before that change?
Pam Margaritis, Owner – Yes, it was filed in Oct 2004.
Mike B, GCC – This is just for a perc test.
Paul N, GCC – And it’s outside the 100’ – even though it may be in the Riverfront Protection Area (RPA).
Mike B, GCC – They allow septic systems within the 200’ of RPA?
Paul N, GCC – Yes, as long as there is no pollution of waters or detrimental effect. The RPA is a different act than the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). Unless there is a viable alternative & the project isn’t a radical project then it is permitted. The WPA has setbacks, but there is no buffer zone in the RPA. As long as an activity isn’t detrimental to the environment it is OK.
Pam Margaritis, Owner – We downsized to a 2-bedroom house as that was there before – the BOH would only approve what was there. I talked to them for awhile. I also talked to the Highway Department & got a letter from Jack Moultrie re. the wetland there. His letter says it is dry 70% of time. The Building Inspector couldn’t help as he’s waiting for every other department. He looked at the plan & the BOH letter & didn’t foresee any problems.
Charles W, GCC – My recollection is that we were contemplating a third party review & suggested the applicant check with other boards prior to incurring that cost. It sounds like you’ve done that.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We’re specifically interested in the perennial or intermittent nature of the stream.
Paul N, GCC – That’s not really material. The RPA & BVW don’t influence each other – the WPA & RPA are different in their protections. Do we just want to know if it’s perennial?
Charles W, GCC – That’s what we were wondering.
Paul N, GCC – The protections aren’t the same.
Carl S, GCC – This is an NOI for perc testing, they would have to file again for construction of the house.
Paul N, GCC – The RPA has 2 conditions for construction – if there are no alternatives & the project should do no harm. If this is a 2-bedroom house that mitigates the impact to some degree.
Mark Gauthier, GCC – This is close to the resource as the crow flies but then it drops down steeply to the stream. During the May storm the stream was hardly running.
Mike B, GCC – That’s because the stream has been blocked to accumulate water for skating.
Paul N, GCC – I assumed it was a perennial to read the RPA. It is also a second level stream as another stream feeds it.
Carl S, GCC – We need to determine whether our bylaw allows this. You’ve made the case that the state allows it.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Our local says no septic systems within 200’ of a perennial stream.
Mike B, GCC – Is this a repair to us?
Pam Margaritis, Owner – There was a house there. The fire department burned it down in the 1970s.
Mr. Margaritis – My wife bought it from her grandmother with the intent to do something with it. We’ve been paying taxes on it for 25 years. The Highway Supervisor put the culvert in there & he says the stream doesn’t run all the time. To not be perennial it has to be dry for 4 consecutive days in rainfall – there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that this stream is dry.
Mike B, GCC – But the USGS calls it perennial – they must’ve had data to support that. We debated that with your wetland scientist.
Mr. Pam Margaritis, Owner – He said he needed a 3 year study.
Mike B, GCC – But we’re still wondering if it’s a repair or not.
Mr. Margaritis – Everyone else says it should be OK.
Carl S, GCC – Remember, this NOI is for test pits, not construction. We can’t say we would approve this at the construction stage. We are trying to figure out the nuances of repair / perennial, etc. We have to vote on this before we can move forward.
Carl S, GCC – Was a house there until 1975?
Pam Margaritis, Owner – Yes.
Carl S, GCC – Is it a repair or new system?
Paul N, GCC / John B, GCC – They’re just looking for test pits outside the 100’ buffer zone.
MOTION to approve the perc testing for 541 North St as shown on the plan dated 10/20/05 noting that GCC does not accept the wetland delineation– Mike / Paul / Unam
Carl S, GCC – This doesn’t imply that GCC will approve / will not approve construction.
MOTION to close the hearing – Paul / John / Unam
8-10 PINE PLAIN ROAD
Rep: Mr. Nelson Tidd, Owner
Nelson Tidd, Owner – This property has been in litigation. The court determined against us but we are in the appeal process. My lawyer says it will take about 1 year or more. I am requesting a 1 year extension.
Carl S, GCC – Are you going forward with the filing?
Nelson Tidd, Owner – Yes, we are optimistic & are going forward.
MOTION to continue to Sept 6, 2007 at 7:30 – John / Paul / Unam
74 JACKMAN STREET (GCC-2006-17; DEP 161-0645) NOI (Cont)
No reps.
MOTION to continue to Oct 5 at 8:00 – John / Mike / Unam
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-11; DEP 161-0642) NOI (Cont)
Reps: John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The plan now has existing spot elevations. We haven’t changed the size of the house – it is 28’ x 48’ with a 2-car attached garage. We pushed it over towards the lot line as far towards the street as we can.
Paul N, GCC – I still don’t see how you can keep the water going into the catchbasin.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – It will go along the 98’ contour here where the rock wall is.
Paul N, GCC – I don’t see that. The rocks in the wall had gaps, the water could go from there.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – There is not enough water to worry about but we are swaling what is there so it will go that way. There will not be a stream of water going that way.
Paul N, GCC – I don’t see why you couldn’t include a drainage system
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – That’s not on our property.
Mike B, GCC – All runoff from the house will go into the infiltrators – what going in this swale area at the front?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Just the runoff from the front lawn.
Carl S, GCC – Will it leave the property?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Any water that hits here is flowing on site. A small amount is going off the lot but then, some goes off now.
Paul N, GCC – You are putting more flow towards the property line.
Mike B, GCC – How much sheet flow will there be?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – That area is all grass & trees – we are not significantly changing anything. You won’t visibly see a change in flow because of the backyard.
Paul N, GCC – You are raising the land & the water will run downhill. It will run off the leaching field.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The grass will absorb it before it does. The Carbon/ Nitrogen value of the soil will only go from 41 to 44, impervious surface is 98, so it’snot that far towards impervious.
Mike B, GCC – Wouldn’t the water go towards the 95’ elevation?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Any water that goes down here has to go to under the 96’ contour line.
Carl S, GCC – Are most of the trees coming down in the back?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – No, they won’t be touched
Paul N, GCC – Any cutting within the 75-100’ buffer will have to be done with Steve Przyjemski.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – We have to remove all trees within 12’ of the septic because of the roots. The Presby system has gone to the BOH & we are awaiting approval. We have downsized to a 5-bedroom house & designed a septic rated for that.
Paul N, GCC – This footprint is accurate within 5%?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – Yes.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The OOC can say that the envelope mustn’t change.
Suzanne McLeod, Abutter, 1a Silvermine Lane – The footprint of this house looks close to our property line.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – The minimum distance is 20’, that’s what it is.
Suzanne McLeod, Abutter, 1a Silvermine Lane – We own the land the culvert is on. We don’t want water from that property. Will that be an issue?
Paul N, GCC – He says it won’t be.
Steve P, GCC Agent – You could request a retaining wall.
Mark G, GCC – There is some water coming through now but it shouldn’t be dramatically more.
Carl S, GCC – How about adding some vegetation along the border for a buffer between the properties?
Suzanne McLeod, Abutter, 1a Silvermine Lane – That does concern us as it’s so close.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – We will disturb that area as little as possible but we do have to grade. There are trees on both sides of the wall & we don’t plan to disturb those on other side of wall.
Mark G, GCC – What if you didn’t grade on that side of the house? Ms. McLeod, do you want trees & a little water or no trees & no water?
Suzanne McLeod, Abutter, 1a Silvermine Lane – We prefer the trees.
Carl S, GCC – You could also re-plant after the work is completed. Is everything on the plan?
Steve P, GCC Agent – Looks like it’s OK.
MOTION to approve the NOI for 187 North Street, plan dated 8-30-06 – Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
| 
