GCC MEETING MINUTES
April 5, 2007
Attending: Carl Shredder, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, John Bell, PersonNameJohn Lopez, Charles Waters, Steve Przyjemski, PersonNameLaura Repplier, Sharon Munro
BUSINESS:
LITTLES HILL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE
MOTION to appoint the following to the Littles Hill Stewardship Committee - Paul / Tom / Unam
BILLS
MOTION to pay the bills – Paul / Tom / Unam
HEARINGS:
16 TRUE LANE
Reps: Todd Stauss, Owner
Mike Birmingham, GCC - Recusing and attending as citizen of Georgetown.
Todd Stauss, Owner – I have an existing backyard which is very small at 29’ across. I would like to expand it. The existing property is flat, as well. It’s not really filling; it’s just grading to flatten area for play area. We have small children and we would like to make a nice play area for them.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – So, this is not really fill it is more of a cut & fill. This area looked steep, from the site visit.
Todd Stauss, Owner – Looking at the trees, we have a very large tree that we are worried about in stormy weather. We would like to take it down. We would like to put in a retaining wall against that hill so there is no erosion towards the lawn. I didn’t know if we will need to fill in so, it isn’t clear if we will need to put that in.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was there a delineation done?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Are we using the 1994 plan? I checked on site and it seemed accurate. It should be allowed based on regulations. It has been pushed far off 50’ to allow for change since then. I’ve already been on site so; I could meet the commissioners there. It is an easy area to walk and see.
Todd Stauss, Owner – I can give more than 21 days to allow the commissioners to conduct a site walk.
MOTION to conduct site walk on Apr 21 at 7:30 am – Tom / Paul / Unam
Paul Nelson, GCC – What about neighborhood covenants regarding the protecting trees?
Mike Birmingham, 12 True Lane, Abutter – This was a 1994 development. Many houses had no trees cleared. The back area is conservation to GRSF. Vernal pool behind 12 goes into GRSF to National Heritage area in Rowley.
Tillie Evangelista, Resident - Where is the conservation land there?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The conservation land is right behind that property.
Tillie Evangalista, Resident - It is very hard to reach. There needs to be an access there.
MOTION to continue to May 17 at 7:30 – Tom / John / Unam
18 TAYLOR STREET
Rep: David Bovio, Owner
David Bovio, Owner – We moved into property in July 2006. We like to put on a 12x12 room in back. Right now there are concrete walkways and flagstone patio. There is also a walkway down the stairs. We could remove that and put in crushed stone to help drainage and then put on the 12x12 addition. There are several retaining walls on 5 tiers goes down to 1st ret wall, drops 6’ to next and goes from there. The drawing shows the tapering to pond. There are gardens, walkways, and so on, all way down. There will be 6’ from the top retaining wall. We could put decking to the wall on either side of the addition.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The retaining walls are acting as a silt fence for erosion. That is a very steep spot. There are a lot of impervious surfaces there. The deck is one aspect and if you remove all the cement and flagstone would be an improvement on permeability. Plus, infiltrators could be an improvement, not pristine native plantings because this would be very disturbed. You should put in another silt sock to protect area from the debris. The deck can be justified as improvement. However, the additional structure is harder to sell as an improvement. Especially, at 58’ rather than 75’.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The home improvement is only 50’. Has NHESP responded?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – No, we haven’t heard, yet.
Paul Nelson, GCC - If they buy into it we can go with 50’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Might have to have to have a regular foundation but will just be glassed in room for view of pond. Adding whatever gutters and infiltrations that you will need would be good. There are no gutters there now. By removing the patio which is currently slanted towards the pond were everything flows down that way now, it would be an improvement. There is 75% concrete there now. Also, there is not going to be any vegetation removed.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Infiltrators off the roof would be an improvement, itself. They could change side access to gravel but difficult to get to.
David Bovio, Owner – That will be too tight for bobcat access. We are just extending the access to go straight out.
MOTION to conduct site walk on May 12 at 8 am – Tom / John / Unam
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I won’t be accepting the pond delineation. I can see it well anyway.
MOTION to continue to May 17 at 8:00 – Tom / John / Unam
28 MOHAWK CIRCLE
Reps: John Tardiff, Owner; Bill Holt, PLS
Carl Shreder, GCC – Why is this an RDA?
Bill Holt, PLS – It’s an RDA because the applicant was contacted after the delineation window closed. Wetland consultant requested filing RDA. There were delineations on this site in past. It was 26 Mohawk delineation in 2004. He suggested to a file RDA with that delineation, to show intentions and see if that delineation could be used in this filing. Now, the consultant can re-delineate wetland, just showing what they plan to do. There were previous fillings in ’89 and ’99.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The RDA filing doesn’t look at houses, only the resource areas.
Bill Holt, PLS – We wanted to see if could use old delineation. Will we have to use new delineation? We will move towards an NOI. We’re looking for a similar relief as for 26 Mohawk. The applicant owned the lot for 28 years. Onsite there is an existing foundation, we are proposing to raze it.
John Tardiff, Owner – It would have been a home for our daughter but they moved and we didn’t complete the project. We bought it in 1975 or ’76 when the foundation was already in.
Bill Holt, PLS – There was an A-series wetland delineation and B-series on another lot near this property. There was a 50’ setback from both. Soil testing was done in 1998 for Title 5. The property had a single family house with 3-bedrooms, Title 5 system, Presby system. Soil testing was done in corner of the lot. A primary distance is 84’ and secondary 62’ from resource.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The OOC for 26 Mohawk says that that wetland is very important.
Bill Holt, PLS – I didn’t know that. The state says is non-jurisdictional, according to a note on the previous plan.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The assessment of the resource says what they arguing.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It was afterward when they determined it was a very important.
Bill Holt, PLS – (Shows abutting lot plan); this is similar to what we are proposing. We are asking for a similar relief to be granted for this.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There were very special conditions in that case.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The septic is out of the 100’ on that property.
John Tardiff, Owner – The owner of that lot said it was a critter bridge that was allowed there.
Charles Waters, GCC – We need the whole history of that case before we go forward.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There was an existing building permit for that lot. It went on for a long time.
Steve Pryzjemski, Agent – I will write it up but this should be judged on its own merits as a unique case.
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes, but the applicants are mentioning it so he should know what it was. They may share a vernal pool so he should know about it.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This is going into a NOI. We will need a 3rd party review.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We need a new delineation. Also, this doesn’t show the opposite side of property. We need 200’ off property and this only goes off by 20’. This delineation has expired. We’ll have to have a start fresh.
Tom Howland, GCC – Is this a National Heritage Area?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, we need current information and step back to begin.
Bill Holt, PLS – Patrick Seekamp will be doing the delineation. I asked him if he could do it as soon as possible.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need a site walk.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Should we wait until an NOI is filed~? It is a pretty clear cut case with no question.
Bill Holt, PLS – We can’t re-flag it before the 17th anyway.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We just have to issue positive determination and not accept the wetland line. Then they can go forward an NOI filing.
Bill Holt, PLS – That’s what we were expecting anyway.
Paul Nelson, GCC – An old OOC for 26 Mohawk says that wetland functions as vernal pool.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I served on the commission at that time. It is a very tight lot, we need to make sure everything is as accurate as possible. There were unique situations on the previous lot. We don’t want to follow that same path.
Bill Holt, PLS – I understand but before I can file an NOI would need to have it re-delineated by a botanist.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The issue with the positive determination. Not accepting a wetland line will allow it to go into an NOI process and we can discuss the issues in that venue.
Anthony, Abutter, 30 Mohawk Circle – Is this the lot next to me? There is a no water line on that section of Mohawk Circle. I have a grant from the federal government to put a water line at Mohawk Circle. It’s not done because I had to put another one in when I already had one and it cost $4k. I got that from FOI.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s not in our jurisdiction but, putting the pipe in would be.
Anthony, Abutter, 30 Mohawk Circle – I just want you to be aware of what the government gave the town for water to Mohawk Circle area. The date was 1976.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We can send that on to Glenn at the Georgetown Water Department.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We will let the Georgetown Water Department know that.
Anthony, Abutter, 30 Mohawk Circle – I went to GWD but they didn’t say anything. There were others who got the line but I didn’t.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We can work it out with Glenn.
Anthony, Abutter, 30 Mohawk Circle – That water down there was Okayed by engineers; they proved it wasn’t wetland there. Taylor St had water on their property. They filled in Taylor St and put a drain in on Mohawk to go out into storm drain. They didn’t clear it, so it’s just runoff from the blockage on the storm drains.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We will go out and assess the property and have a 3rd party evaluation, as well.
Anthony, Abutter, 30 Mohawk Circle – Super, thanks.
John Tardiff, Owner – What property?
Carl Shreder, GCC – You need to file a NOI and we will start discussing issues associated with construction. This RDA is just for the resource line and not construction. We will hold site walk and a 3rd party review.
MOTION to issue a positive determination, not accepting the wetland as submitted on the plan – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close hearing – Mike / John / Unam
47 WEST STREET
Reps: Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; Richard Morello, Applicant; Julie McNeill, Attorney
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – There are a significant amount of debris and car parts on the site. There is a wetland and intermittent stream on site from NW. Cars were on entire area to the South. It is not the delineated perennial brook that is part of the scope of work. The cleanup apparently was in 2003 with OOC for both aspects of work. This has since expired.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Work was continued under the Enforcement Order?
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Yes.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The previous owner didn’t follow OOC at all and conducted cleanup without
permission.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – I am not aware of that. If you have questions regarding the cleanup and 40B please ask the applicant and LSP.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This was envisioned as a 2 tier process – cleanup, once complete and then go into construction. We are not through with the cleanup, yet.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – No, that’s right. I am including that with the NOI for entire project. It has been approved by the state with conditions.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have operated under an EO as the initial OOC was meaningless because it was not followed. This is the only way to move forward with the cleanup. The EO still stands.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The 40B allows you to do many things but does not clear you from having a 40B permit.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It was the goal of the commission to ensure the cleanup was completed but it was not conducted as planned.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – There is a Cease and Desist order on the site now. We should have it permanent; to do nothing on site until the DEP comments are received.
Carl Shreder, GCC – They needed control over what was going on.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Do we need to file under an EO and C&D?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Next step appears to have a new OOC. The old one is meaningless.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – That’s why we are here now.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You are not here for the building but just to clean up?
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Those two are in the same NOI, they are linked. The project was initiated through the desire of the applicant to build a development.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes, but, the goal is to do cleanup appropriately.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. All of the large pieces have been removed. We just need to remove the contaminated soil. This is approved by DEP now.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There was supposed to be a 50’grid soil sampling and this was not done according to the DEP.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The State, commission and I understand that cleanup has to be completed. There is still a discussion over what kind of sampling should be done.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Is that up to the state?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – No, it’s up to our local bylaws.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – GCC gets involved in cleanup of hazardous waste?
Carl Shreder, GCC – It is a joint jurisdiction where we oversee the wetland resources which may be impacted.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – The DEP signed off on Phase II cleanup. The DEP has jurisdiction over cleanup itself.
Carl Shredder, GCC – We represent the DEP, as well. We have been working with them.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – We have been working on the project for many years, actually, longer than any other profiles. In terms of the DEP now, the modified RAM plan is approved by DEP? Phase II report is not complete and not approved. The site is in non-compliance for not submitting Phase II and has to deliver shortly for Phase IV. The DEP is issuing an enforcement order for non-compliance on the clean up. The only portion of cleanup has been conducted under RAM plan. The NOI submission doesn’t address the soil removal and their property removal of soil is in a resource area, all along a stream. This is not addressed in the NOI. The NOI is skewed to building and not remediation. They are going to remove soil in resource areas and there is confusion over how they are to do this and why
it is not in the NOI. It is very complicated to combine the two and start disturbing the resource area. We will need to know how the areas will be restored but, this is not restoration plan in the NOI.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Regarding the Bordering Vegetated Wetland and stream, the property once had contaminated soils that were removed in the area. We will be back to 4-6” below before grade and loam is brought in to restore to original grade and it was seeded with wet meadow mix. In the upland areas reseeding is being done with an upland seed mix. The contours will be graded to match grade of original impact area it will be lined with rocks from the site to prevent erosion and improve habitat in the streambed. I’m not familiar with RAM plan and etc. Did the submission of the LSP’s information go with the NOI? The plan submission with NOI shows cross-hatched areas with grids in resource area.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was this filed only with state?
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Yes. That was our understanding we were not subject to the bylaw. If we are subject to the bylaw will we have to file locally?
Paul Nelson, GCC – You didn’t establish that first?
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – It is our risk and we want to go that way.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was it a local filing before? Why not now?
Julie McNeil, Attorney – The Zoning Board didn’t grant a waiver to the bylaw before. We have the option of appealing to Housing Commission but it has not been done. We are coming to ask for that waiver now. The OOC we are approved for is both cleanup and development. This has expired and we didn’t ask for an extension. We are asking for a waiver. If you don’t grant the waiver we will have to go back to the ZBA.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are you aware that there was an EO on that site?
Julie McNeil, Attorney – No.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The ZBA’s 40B decision is only good for 2 years from March 2004. This expired 3+ years ago.
Charles Waters, GCC – What waivers do you want from us?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This was denied by ZBA explicitly.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – We could’ve appealed it but we didn’t.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – The resource area is not included in the NOI except, by the attachment of RAM plan. It doesn’t talk about the area to be disturbed there. Also, the expiration of flagging is over 3 yrs old. This area will need re-flagging.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Those areas were highly disturbed as cars were pulled out of the wetland. There have been changes to wetland line as result. It would be understandable to review line.
Carl Shreder, GCC – When was the original delineation?
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – In the year 2000.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Doesn’t it make more sense to do the delineation after all the remediation is done? Then work on that topo.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Get delineation approved, consultant approved line, appealed, and then DEP approved the line.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I need to know what’s out there.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need to know if we going to grant a waiver to our own bylaws. They’ve asked for a waiver to the whole bylaw.
Charles Waters, GCC – If was 2-tier strategy originally and we are still not past the first tier, why are we shifting to another route for both activities now?
Carl Shreder, GCC – The DEP recommended they file an NOI rather than an EO. They were concerned with cleaning up the site and not with development.
Charles Waters, GCC – Why not enforce what we want and then have them come to us?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes, we can do that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The work became so far from an OOC that we had to issue an EO.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The OOC wasn’t being followed then. So, if we issue another one can we trust them to do that?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We can grant this with a yield plan and a cleanup to follow.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – The cleanup does have to happen first.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, file separately. So we have assurance it will be done.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The OOC should say that no work will start on the development until the COC is issued on cleanup.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – I have no answer as to why cleanup didn’t go to original OOC and why it’s not involved in the EO. We combined them because they are linked and can’t build the project until it’s cleaned up so we could have a single OOC to cover both. We are looking for most efficient way through process.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The OOC is closer. Until we put that through the registry you can’t start development.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It is important to the rest of town that we do that.
Tom Howland/Steve Przyjemski, GCC & Agent – Its 1200’ from the town wells.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Our goal to get cleanup done and move on.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We tried to kick start the process and nothing happened. People just disappeared.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – I don’t know about that.
Richard Morello, Owner – Last time it was all about this NOI. LSP wanted to hear from the DEP first, that has happened and here we are. We want to clean up and move forward. No bank will lend money on dirty property.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – The deadline to clean up is Oct 12 of this year. The DEP was concerned and was thinking about an enforcement action.
Richard Morello, Owner – Val Thompson approved methodology yesterday. Phase III report should be done by Monday.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – The DEP is saying they have to do Phase III because this is so far behind. The permits and all are making this a bigger problem because this is so far behind.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We want to see this site cleaned up and then move on. We don’t want to wonder as to whether things have been cleaned while we are talking about development.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – He wants to know how much he’s approved for before go forward.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The 40B has expired and town counsel is looking into it. No waiver has been granted to our bylaw.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have jurisdiction under the EO. The last one was to Cease and Desist until it came back to us because of poor communications between us and the consultants regarding what we are doing. There were so many consultants involved, things were moved, changed and tested, and they never told us. That’s why they had an EO on this work, as to what was allowed and we could be in the loop.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Now we have enough information to put together an NOI and OOC. The applicant didn’t like the grading proposed by DEP but that has been agreed on and it can be put that into an OOC now.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – The two NOIs filed do have risks.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Not for a cleanup.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental. – Yes, but if we do the cleanup and then are not given permission to develop enough to make it financially viable, then what?
Jim Lucre, Consultant – If it is not cleaned up by October we have to deal with the state, anyway. You are the owners and it has to be cleaned up.
George Comiskey, Old Jacobs Road, Resident – In the ZBA decision the determination of the town is that it has met local 40B requirements. I question their ability to appeal to HAC. I question whether they should be granted a waiver.
Steven Epstein, Abutter, 51 West St – There were many projects applying for 40B at the same time, it went over 10% as they were being appealed in various order. When that decision was approved the threshold had been exceeded – but you can’t go to HAC any more as we are over the threshold. If they deny your 40B you have no standing with HAC.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St - Are they saying they have valid 40B permit?
Julie McNeil, Attorney - I think we do but, it appears town counsel is ruling on it.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St – If the applicant says they do have a valid permit then that permit was denied a waiver of Ch 161. So you must file under local bylaw. So why have you failed to do so.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – If that waiver isn’t allowed, and then we have other options.
Tillie Evangelista, Resident – I was on the ZBA but not for this. I can’t go in and modify a project. I would have to start again from scratch. The testing of 8 wells was essential. The property is entirely different now. All testing should be redone.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There have been many EOs on this property. At the time, the applicant met some of the deadlines and fines were waived if they met them.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent - Going forward, the fines will be applied and collected.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There were fines levied but applicant was absolved.
Tillie Evangelista, Resident – We should go forward with the fines. The Agent is doing an outstanding job.
GCC – We agree.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St – I was on GCC at this time, the intent of the EOs and fines was not to be punishment but to give incentive for them to carry out certain actions.
Dorothy Blanchard, Resident – My concern is that whatever decisions are made the most crucial thing is protection of our water supply. Every single citizen agrees. If our water supply is hurt we are all in trouble. One other thing should be done, a transfer of property to the town before anything else done.
Richard Morello, Owner– It was agreed that would be done after the cleanup and before the first building is up.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That is from the expired OOC. We should work on a proposal on new one.
Dorothy Blanchard, Resident– A lot of things were not done correctly with original one.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This hearing should be continued to give the applicant time to see if they want to file locally or with the state. It has been explained to them clearly.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St – The applicant should go to the ZBA to see if that permit is still valid.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That’s what I said, too.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St - Great job Steve!
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I will submit a list of questions and issues to the applicant.
Charles Waters, GCC – Only town counsel will provide their opinion on what matters. That will not come from us.
Julie McNeil, Attorney – Do you want us to get opinion from ZBA?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I said we need clarification and I don’t know how you’ll do that but it needs doing.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St - When they ask the ZBA, the ZBA may ask town counsel, as well.
Charles Waters, GCC – We’re not going to agree to give you anything from town counsel.
Steven Epstein, Abutter, 51 West St – Town counsel can’t make a determination with the ZBA without information from the applicant as to what they have been doing for last 5 years.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If the original 40B had original waiver would that make the whole thing moot?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We have to make it clear that we want the two activities in two-step NOIs.
GCC – We made that clear. But if they go forward without cleanup it will be under an EO.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – We might go forward with that under an EO anyway.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We’ll think about that avenue as well. If you have DEP issues we will work with you to make sure the cleanup takes place.
Charles Waters, GCC – The sooner you clean it up the sooner you can get on with your project. Work with Steve to move the cleanup faster.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – We could begin work on the cleanup tomorrow with the commission’s permission and the DEP. We could just remove that from the NOI and have that only for development and proceed with that.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Shouldn’t you accept to do the EO first? Then go to the construction NOI after that’s complete?
Carl Shreder, GCC – The applicant needs time to work out what they want to do next.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The cleanup HAS to be done before construction.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – They can’t work there until they have filed a local NOI.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The EO doesn’t have to be filed with the registry. The OOC would be and it will hold it up until issuance of COC.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Would an EO be required? An OOC on a deed is safer.
Charles Waters, GCC – If they agree to work with us under an EO we can get it going faster.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – There are still many tasks to do. The groundwater sampling, grid sampling and the borings sampling all have to be declared under an EO. This is not a paperless option.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I don’t want to impede them from meeting DEP deadline. We can work with them to get that done. In the long run, an OOC is probably the way to go.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Are there aspects of EO that go beyond what DEP wants?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Maybe. We originally asked for a smaller grid area.
Richard Morello, Owner – Where does it end? Groundwater testing has been done. So, why are you asking for it again?
Jim Lucre, Consultant - The DEP said they wanted a quarterly report on a groundwater sampling and it hasn’t been done.
Richard Morello, Owner – We never got that from them. My LSP hears from them and we do it.
Charles Waters, GCC – There is miscommunication everywhere we look here. You want to clean up to move forward but if you don’t communicate better then our hands are tied. How will you fix that?
Richard Morello, Owner – When we hear from the DEP we send it to everyone. Now we will do the Phase III status report tomorrow. All reporting has to go back to DEP.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I’ve been on this since the beginning. This is a recurring problem. If it’s supposed to be done then why hasn’t it? We need to know.
Charles Waters, GCC – We need a punch list on what is going to be done and when.
Richard Morello, Owner – We feel that we are there now. My LSP has one now. Jim Lucre knows what the DEP protocol is. I just have to get the Phase III scope to them next. They have conditionally approved 2/3 of it.
Jim Lucre, Gale Associates, Consultant – The RAM has been modified and approved voluntarily. The DEP allowed them to go ahead and remove the contaminated soil and the DEP has talked about re-sampling the wells with high concentrations of benzene. There is still a need to keep doing the sampling. Most important thing to do is to move forward with the soil removal. Also, there are other things to be done; risk assessment and eco risk, and not one of those have been done. We can write an OOC for soil removal but we need information from a risk assessment. The Phase II is incomplete with no risk assessment. When we have the submission of Phase III it will outline the options for cleanup. The RAM may or may not be option for final cleanup.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The RAM plan is the plan for your next steps.
Jim Lucre, Gale Associates, Consultant – There is the original and the modified one. The original one is still valid plus modification comments. Both conditions in DEP letters will apply to the modified RAM plan.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Modifications are to be ready. We should be able to come up with a plan of what we have to do. This needs to be in one document.
Jim Lucre, Gale Associates, Consultant – It is hard to see what RAM plan includes because it’s usually over multiple documents. We need to have it in one place so we can write an OOC or EO where all things are for a final decision.
Bob Watson, Abutter, 9 West St – This is a complex process with many moving parts and I’m very concerned about potential cracks that chemicals can seep through. The idea of consolidating this into one document is very essential.
Carl Shreder, GCC –We need to get our hands on this project and not let anything fall away. We all need to know what’s going on.
Charles Waters, GCC – It would be essential for your team to communicate with Jim Luker. They need to get together.
Richard Morello, Owner – We are trying to take the lead from DEP to get these things approved.
George – Why haven’t you filed with National Heritage? These are time sensitive issues.
Michael Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – We have filed with them.
Tillie Evangelista, Resident – I have a question on the bond for 100k or 200k pertaining to the work? Has the letter of credit expired? Was it only good for the original for about 5 years?
Richard Morello, Owner – The money is still with the ZBA. Not to pay the LSP, just to ensure that the cleanup is done.
Tillie Evangelista, Resident –The letter of credit is imperative in case they take off without the cleanup being done.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett St – If the OOC is issued to the commission we can add for own bond. I think we did the original bond with the ZBA to remove heavy burden from applicant and one bond for both. You can order anything under an EO. We could ask Jim Luker what he hopes would be done in next 2 months and put that in the EO to allow it to move forward.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The existing EO is to Cease and Desist. I don’t want to prohibit them from moving forward.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You could go forward at any time by getting in touch with us.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We need a list that has been agreed on between the DEP and us. We already have what the DEP says we need to do and the two parties have to agree.
Charles Waters, GCC – I agree that our list will not be approved by applicant. It has to be something we comply with applicant and the DEP. You should schedule it in next month to decide whether we want an EO or an OOC.
Jim Lucre, Consultant – Isn’t the plan to go with EO?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes. They have a number of things they need to do under the DEP order.
Paul Nelson, GCC – And the agreed upon task list.
Charles Waters, GCC – If Jim Lucre has items that the applicant doesn’t agree with then inform us of what they are.
Micheal Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Can we start work under the agent’s authority?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, but we’re talking about sampling and to get information gathering moving forward.
MOTION to continue to May 17 at 8:30 – Tom / John / Unam
| 
