GCC MEETING MINUTES
Aug. 23, 2007
Third Floor Meeting Room
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, John Bell, John Lopez, Charles Waters, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Sharon Munro
BUSINESS:
Discussion on 133 Central Street
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – There was no as-built in the file and the original plans did not match the current as-built, although the CoC was signed and approved.
Approval of meeting minutes for 7/12 & 7/26.
MOTION to approve meeting minutes for 7/12 & 7/26 with changes. Carl/John L. all/unam
SIGNING:
-CoC for 133 Central Street
-EO 47 West Street (Tidds)
-Bills
MOTION to pay the bills. Tom/Carl all/unam
Hearings
9 Gloria Road
App. – Barry Low; Rep. – Stephen Sawyer at Oak Engineers
Barry Low, Applicant – (Gave copies of identified plantings) since we met last I put together this document of the plantings and there is about 50 plants here. Some are endangered and are available. There are 11 of the 50 that will become wetland plants.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The plan itself was modified?
Barry Low, Applicant – Yes, Steve do you have that?
Barry Low, Applicant – The plan gave the exact location of the plantings.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need to have the hard copy of the plan.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We never received the hard copy.
Barry Low, Applicant – I believe we had given you one the last time that should have been here.
Charles Waters, GCC – There need to be some modification that will take 5 minutes so we can see it to make a vote.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We just need to see the plan and I have been happy with what we have so far.
Charles Waters, GCC – Just to clarify, do we have this planting hand out? Do we need a planting scheme?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes.
Charles Waters, GCC – I am holding up a document for plantings which has 14 pages of plantings and the understanding is that you are choosing from this listing and not including anything else?
Barry Low, Applicant – No, I plan to use only what’s on the list.
Charles Waters, GCC – Let’s continue to Sept. 6th.
MOTION to cont. Sept. 6th @ 7:25, for plans. Carl/Charles all/unam
1 Harris Way
App. – Peter S. Confalone; Rep. – Vaclav V. Talacko at Hancock Assoc.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – I have 7 copies of the plan – Last time the driveway had to be moved 75’ away from the BVW and the house has moved and the driveway is now 85’ away from the BVW.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – This is special conditions with NHESP
Carl Shreder, GCC – This house should have never really have been built.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – This is correct.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – What is the connection with NHESP?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – They are in the NHESP area.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We should consider what NHESP has to say.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, we can incorporate that in our decisions.
Charles Waters, GCC – Could you consider moving the septic system?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – Yes, but that would cause a flow that would be a problem.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The house also looks bigger.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – No, that has not changed.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Then your scale is wrong, sir.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – You know, on that last plan the scale was screwed up.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, why can’t you adjust the septic system?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – This is because it doesn’t fit the grading requirements.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Why can’t you move that 90 deg to get this out of the 100’ buffer?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – I can not move this because of the constraints for the area have here. We are asking to encroach only 75’ and I don’t see why this is not an approvable plan.
Charles Waters, GCC – I feel that there is a way to avoid the waiver. It is our job to analyze. You can explore other possibilities for this and my personal analysis is that you could move this in a reasonable way to avoid the buffer (BVW).
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, could you move this house and move the driveway away from the BVW.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – This could be done but it would something that would be something that would be questionable in terms of the design.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Have you asked anyone for any other waivers?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – No, and I moved the house as you had requested the last time and left a little room for error.
Charles Waters, GCC - We are to presume that if you encroach on our BVW then we must assume that you would have an impact on the wetlands – You have said it is possible for you to move this and you have said so.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – Would the board entertain the idea of us cleaning the area?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The area of delineation is now expired so we can’t approve this anyway. There are actually two waivers in the area. The whole place is wooded.
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – I hope we move to have a site walk so I can show you what we are doing and hopefully you can see it my way.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, what about the mitigation?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – there is a considerable amount of debris out there and we could remove that for you.
Charles Waters, GCC – Would like to conduct a site walk?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes, I think we should in order to evaluate.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is this is affordable unit?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – I’m not sure if this is considered an affordable housing.
Carl Shreder, GCC – When was the original OoC?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – 2003
Charles Waters, GCC – Where is this pond area you are talking about?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – So, that is in the open space area, there?
Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates – Yes, I guess this was used as a dumping area.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Would we like to continue?
All – Yes.
MOTION to conduct a site walk on Sept. 15th @ 8:00 AM
MOTION to continue the hearing to Oct. 4th @ 7:15 PM. Tom/ Carl all/unam
101 Lakeshore Drive
App. – Joseph Maglio; Rep. – John Paulson at Atlantic Engineering
Carl Shreder, GCC – Can you recap where we left off?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – We had a concern from the abutter regarding the water flowing toward her property.
I had modified the plan to show that none of the water will cross and flow across the road and we added the silt socks and hay bails and the only other thing would be the deck. I believe there was a tree that had fallen there and we would like to remove the tree and some vegetation along with some plantings. We need to decide on some inform on requiring only 300’.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I think there is some cause to feel that the applicant would really be improving the area and I had made the mistake of telling them it was 300’.
Carl Shreder, GCC – This would normally be a waiver request on this particular project.
Charles Waters, GCC – What is the disadvantage to the applicant to having the abutters notified.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need to let the abutters across the pond know what is being done here.
Charles Waters, GCC – Those who live across the pond could question why they were not notified.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, we should stop this discussion and make sure that the abutters are notified.
Charles Waters, GCC – Are we considering this a small project?
Carl Shreder, GCC – This is for the commission to decide.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, when an applicant applies do we notify abutters within 300’ or across the pond.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, are these written?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes. This is basically across the river. So, we can’t continue the discussion.
Charles Waters, GCC – If it’s on the pond then we need to notify those across the pond.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It seems it would be awkward anyway.
Charles Waters, GCC – In the future, we should let Steve judge rather this is a big project that would require the applicant to notify the abutters either 300’ or more.
Charles Waters, GCC – The pond people could be particularly sensitive about it.
MOTION to waive the across the pond notification to abutters. Mike/Carl all/unam
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I would like to address this as a business section to discuss with the commission if it’s questionable.
Charles Waters, GCC – You may be in the position to explain ahead of time to applicant that would be clear about the abutter’s notifications.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I think that it should be made clear to the abutter that there will be no issue with the water flow.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, I would like to include that in the OoC and also, the trees. I would like to see that the trees are protected when the asphalt is removed.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – What about the retaining wall? It would seem that you would have a lot of pressure against that wall over time.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – They might want to grade a lot higher to protect the trees.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is grass going to be planted?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I am curious about the tree on the bank that they plan to remove. I would like to know how they plan to remove that. I can work with them on that. If they want to clear the area at the top terrace and contribute some planting. I can do this with them in the field.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The tree removal, protection of the trees, water control and mitigation on the first terrace.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is everything on the plan that needs to be?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I think that we can agree and work in the field on this.
Charles Waters, GCC – Is this agreeable with the applicant?
Joseph Maglio, Applicant – Yes.
MOTION to approve plans with stipulations on work with planting. Tom/Carl all/unam
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We need to close the CoC for the septic system first. We can sign both at the next meeting.
MOTION to continue hearing to Sept. 6 @ 8:30 PM Carl/ Mike all/unam
| 
