GCC MEETING MINUTES
March 22, 2007
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, PersonNameLaura Repplier
BUSINESS:
OPEN SPACE MAPS
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett Street, Open Space Committee Chair – All Open Space maps required for OSRP submission to EOEA is with MVPC. Seven are fine; two went back for revisions – the Open Space & Historical Resources maps. They will probably be in next week. There is no hold up now for releasing the OS Plan.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We should go to the other departments and ask if they have any comments before we pass them by.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – They can still make their changes as we go forward even if it is out for public comment.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett Street, Open Space Committee Chair – They submitted the data that was published so they are unlikely to want to comment. The maps will be here well in time for public release. The comment period should be between 30-45 days.
MOTION to release draft OSRP for a public comment period of 30 days – Tom / Mike / Unam
MINUTES
MOTION to approve minutes of January 25, with comments – Tom / Mike / Unam
MOTION to approve minutes of February 8, with comments – Tom / Mike / Unam
BILLS
MOTION to pay the bills – Paul / Mike / Unam
HEARINGS:
74 JACKMAN STREET (GCC-2006-17; DEP 161-0645) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering; Russ Beegan, Owner
Paul Nelson, GCC – A previous OoC was opened on this property and there are outstanding issues left open from that. I consulted with MACC, they said this new NOI is the right thing to do but before we get to the execution of this one we should take care of the outstanding issues from the first one. Some of these issues are immutable like the fill and rip rap but other things are less permanent – the driveway, the clearing that shouldn’t have been cleared, missing No-Disturb bounds etc.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – We left it last time that we had done an as-built to determine what was done and that was recorded in a letter of inconsistencies and physical activities on the ground. The GCC said to file a new NOI and make a site visit. Now we can look at that list of issues & decide on an approach to resolving them. There is no open OoC now, we could handle it under an EO but the GCC wanted a new NOI. If we are cleaning up the list of discrepancies we need a shopping list of things to be done & then do them. Most of what we’re asking for is what was allowed under original OoC but not completed. They were focusing on other house issues & didn’t get those things done.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I want an ID and list items not completed from the original OoC.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Some of those things can’t be fixed.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, like the house being built at the wrong elevation & the addition of extensive rip rap due to that higher elevation can’t be fixed.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Has the original OoC expired?
GCC – Yes.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The road was part of the original OoC. We need a CoC to close the original one. And EO is not the right thing; we need a COC on the original before we go forward.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We can have an OoC on file with other things under an EO.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That’s right, and don’t issue a new OoC until the EO is satisfied.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We should have a COC on the original before we start new one.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need to flesh out the original requirements vs. what we are looking at now.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Some things can be fixed – the addition of stone bounds, restoring the cut areas – but how do we mitigate for the house being built at the wrong elevation and the rip rap? We can work towards things that can be resolved but the area they are proposing to use for replication is already natural wetland. I don’t see that they can offer much, though maybe they could give back more lawn. They have gone past the No-Cut line already. The house is 6’ above elevation which means there is more paving, more fill, and more disturbance.
Paul Nelson, GCC – And all the paving was supposed to be pervious but it is not.
Russ Beegan, Owner – We bought the land & acted as our own GCs. This is not what we do for a living, we were just focused on getting the house built & didn’t pay attn to the height of the building etc.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You should’ve been working to the plan, it wasn’t built to specifications. You were given a specification to build to and it should’ve happened that way. There is no rip rap on the original plan because the original plan, with the house at the agreed elevation, didn’t need it.
Russ Beegan, Owner – We have no explanation. We didn’t know about any of that.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – regarding the elevation of the house, it’s a different style house than was originally designed. There was additional grading around the house because of the additional foundation.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That affects us when the grading is increased so much.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The original plan had it at 34’ – that’s the approved plan.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – With the grade there it’s at about 40’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We work with changes but we need to know about it.
Russ Beegan, Owner – We accept that.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering – A lot of people doesn’t understand how important that is. We need to move forward, they are aware that they are not in compliance.
Russ Beegan, Owner – We didn’t have an architect, we just gave the plan to the framer & he said he could do it & I asked him to add a foot to the foundation. Just did that so there would be more head room in the cellar – we didn’t intent to beat the GCC or ruin the land.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Shall we go with a NOI and EO or how shall we handle it?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Shall we issue an EO? Or try to work with an NOI as well? These outstanding issues sound like enforcement issues to me. Normally we handle corrective actions under an EO & then let the NOI go forward from that point.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There is no flood storage compensation & no wetland replication possibility – the DEP also highlighted those as problems. We also see that the wetland culvert pipe is longer than it should have been with a couple feet of fill added there. A couple of trees were cut down outside the allowed area; some were in the middle of the wetland outside the Limit of Work.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I think an EO should exist.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – They complied immediately & completely with the cease & desist EO issued. They aren’t supposed to be working without an OoC – with an EO they have permission to address these outstanding issues until we can go forward with an NOI.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I’d want the enforcement issues brought to completion before we issue an OoC.
Charles Waters, GCC – I agree.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes, as long as those issues are resolved before an OoC is issued. We can go back to the original OoC line by line and look at what can be fixed and work on those.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Looking at the road, what can be done to protect the wetland on either side there?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We’re not overturning that decision, just trying to get it back on track.
Charles Waters, GCC – Let’s resolve the EO issues & go fwd from there.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That means they will installs the No-Cut bounds, replant trees, rip out the culvert pipe & fill, and replace the drive with pervious pavement. If they did go outside the then we could move the No-Cut bounds further in to make up for it – they wouldn’t require an engineer to fix those things.
Charles Waters, GCC – Is there anything in there contrary to what they are asking for in the NOI?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, they proposing to keep the pipe.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Then we can leave that issue for the NOI.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Let’s continue the NOI & vote that Steve modify & re-issue an EO with that list of items to be fixed.
GCC – Mr. Beegan and Mr. Ogren, you should work with Steve to determine the list of things to fix.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That should come from the Commission, not just me.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You can issue an initial one & we can change it when sign the final one.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I’ll work with them on my list, write the EO & you can modify it as you see fit.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The quicker they fix it the quicker they can move forward.
Paul Nelson, GCC – What about the floodplain & flood storage?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That’s another thorny big problem on my list but it may not be fixable because they are related to house at the wrong elevation.
MOTION to issue an EO initially to affect things that need to be changed as determined, for Steve to list potential things that could be mitigated – Paul / Tom / Unam
MOTION to continue at 7:30 on April 19 – Tom – Mike / Unam
BAILEY LANE BRIDGE (GCC-2006-13; DEP 161-0643) NOI (Cont)
Reps: David Chappell, Chappell Engineering; Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental; Jack Moultrie, addressStreetGeorgetown Highway Surveyor
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – This meeting is to discuss mitigation for flood water storage. We have a new location & a new plan. We proposed the sand pit on Georgetown Water Department land but they had problems with that and said we couldn’t use it. The new location is 1000’ in from the access road – beyond the gate and just beyond the rock outcrop on the right. The area is highly disturbed it has been excavated & used as dumping area for boulders & gravel. Successive vegetation is coming in now.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Has GWD commented on this new site?
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – Yes, they have signed off on this location.
Jack Moultrie, Highway Surveyor – They have written to confirm that they agree to the site.
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – This area has easy access off the road to get an excavator in. It goes down to 81’ elevation to the pile of rock – that is coming out with the saplings. There are not many mature trees there. We will contact the blandings turtles experts to tailor plantings for them.
MOTION for a site walk April 21 at 9 am – Mike / Charles / Unam
Carl Shreder S- How big is this area?
Doug Sparrow, Sparrow Environmental – I don’t know the area, but it takes 21k cf of flood storage.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Has Natural Heritage commented yet?
David Chappell, Chappell Engineering – We will revisit that with them once we get a plan, asap.
MOTION to continue to May 3 at 8:30 – Tom / Mike / Unam
11 MARTEL WAY (GCC-2007-01; DEP 161-0659) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental; Costy Ricci, Ricci Construction
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – The Dec 21st plan was submitted to the NHESP re the Estimated Habitat for blandings turtles in this area. We are trying to work with them & get the project so it is satisfactory to them but they are much backlogged. We are looking for feedback from you to review the plan submitted to them. We re-configured the plan, it is completely different now. There is one essential point – Natural Heritage said they wanted more of the buffer zone protected, especially at the rear of the site. If we could move towards the street we could get a bigger buffer in the back. The building has been reconfigured with gravel parking in the back & a fence to prevent the turtles from entering the site. The original building was 7850 sf,
this new one is 7200 sf.
Paul Nelson, GCC – This is not much different from the one we proposed long ago.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – Yes. It’s not ideal; the driveway will have to be pitched.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Will it involved more fill?
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – Yes, and cut too so the fill will be re-distributed on site. There will be no work or grading beyond the fence. The LOW is now at 50’ rather than the 25’. The biggest variances are at the sides. According to the prelim habitat study this is certainly blandings habitat but not for nesting. We are proposing to put in nesting habitat for them. They are currently nesting elsewhere; this is their feeding and foraging habitat. The NHESP hasn’t commented on this plan yet. Equipment will be stored here but there will not be a lot of activity at this site once it is built.
Costy Ricci, Ricci Construction – We are still looking to use this site for our own use.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – We are looking for consensus on a general approach for further encroachment towards the wetland by the road and a greater distance away in the rear.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I’m interested to hear what Natural Heritage says, there are extensive wetlands back there.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – Blandings will migrate across the area – Natural Heritage are concerned that they have adequate travel area.
Tom Howland, GCC – We should require that they add a critter tunnel under the road.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This is an improvement over the last version we saw. It seems as though there is less of an impact.
MOTION for site walk on April 21 at 10 am – Tom / Mike / Unam
MOTION to continue to May 3 at 9:00 – Tom / Paul / Unam
PARISH ROAD – MAP 20, LOT 1 (GCC-2006-23; DEP 161-0648) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental
Applicants asked for continuation.
MOTION to continue to April 19 at 8:30 – Tom / Paul / Unam
| 
