GCC MEETING MINUTES
January 25, 2007
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Charles Waters, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
BUSINESS:
11 MARTEL WAY - NEW NOI
Reps: Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental; Constantine Ricci, Ricci Construction
Carl Shreder, GCC - This item is regarding a new plan for this site, to determine whether we should accept it. We must determine whether it is significantly different from the plan that was denied in 2005 and whether it warrants opening a new NOI.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – This is a list of the changes in building size & site disturbance. (distributes list) The main issue with the last project was the proximity of the work to the wetland. This table shows the current building size in relation to the original building size.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The last one was 8500 sf & the new one is 7800 sf. March 9, 2005 was the last one.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – That isn’t the one that was denied – the date on that plan was March 23, 2005.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The plan that was denied was 10/31/05.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I can’t say either way as I haven’t seen the new plan yet. We should have a chance to look at it and & vote at the next meeting.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – We do have to make sure we are comparing the same plans. (Reads original differences.) There is dual jurisdiction under the state & local bylaw – the state has no 3 year time lag before we can re-file.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It would be unusual to open them separately.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – Unless you open it only under the state.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I haven’t looked at the plan yet and I want to make sure I do. Our bylaw does stand for 3 years unless the change is significant. Unless the plan is significantly different.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – The new plan was filed in time for this meeting.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It wasn’t accepted, we have to vote to accept it and we can’t decide to accept it unless we’ve seen the plan. We need to go back to why it was denied & decide if the new one is significantly different. We need to know which one was denied originally.
Constantine Ricci, Ricci Construction – We only brought this plan in for comment but it wasn’t part of a hearing.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The date of the plan on the OOC is 10/31/05.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – This building is a different shape. The septic system is also the same as that’s the only place we can put it. The whole thing is built around the septic. The entrance also hasn’t changed as that’s the only way in. The changes include: The back part increases by 10’ the No-Disturb buffer; there is a 16’ increase in setback at other locations; there is 4900 sf of additional undisturbed area; the impervious area has changed as the amount of parking has been reduced with the smaller square footage of the building; the back of site is the most sensitive so we tried to take it away from there.
Paul Nelson, GCC – But is a steep hill there.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – It is steep in the back but the other areas aren’t.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – None of the requested variances have changed, just the magnitude of them.
MOTION to accept the plan dated 12/21/06 for 11 Martel Way at the discretion of the Commission as there are distinct changes in the plan from that previously denied & the GCC is therefore accepting the plan for a NOI hearing – Charles / Paul / 3 Aye, 2 Nay
65 JACKMAN STREET
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We have received a request to extend an OOC on this property. No work has been done on the original project in the 3 years of the original OOC. There was another project approved 3 years ago for the existing building. This OOC was to put in an additional garage. It is 19’ to the wetland. Waivers were granted in return for restoration of the wetland. It was filed before it expired, but missed by 1 month. We would not be denying for date, but on the merits of the case. The original OOC was issued on 9/4/03.
MOTION to deny the extension to the OOC for 65 Jackman on the basis of the fact that no work has begun, that the regulations have been amended such that the existing OOC no longer complies with the regulations, and that the wetland delineation has also expired – Paul / Tom / Unam
WHISTLE STOP ORAD
MOTION to deny the ORAD extension for Whistle Stop (DEP 161-0581) on the grounds that the wetland delineation is more than 3 years old and has thus expired – Paul / Tom / Unam
OPEN SPACE PLAN
MOTION to release the 2006 OS&RP draft to other town departments for review & comment – Mike / Paul / Unam
MINUTES
MOTION to approve the January 11, 2007 minutes with comments – Charles / Paul / Unam
BILLS
MOTION to pay the bills – Paul / Tom / Unam
HEARINGS
25 BAILEY LANE (GCC-2006-16; DEP 161-0651) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mark Unger, Owner; Bob Grasso, Professional Land Services (PLS)
Bob Grasso, PLS – Our last discussion was regarding the revisions to the plan. There was a comment re. the floodplain from the DEP. According to the USGS datum from the site the elevation is at 85’, the local topo said it was 2.7’ higher so it’s 87.7’. That is shown on the plan. We moved all the grading proposed below the floodplain on the prior plan. It has been reseeded & revegetated. We moved the driveway outside the 75’ No-Disturb area. We moved it to between the 75-100’ - it was between the 50-75’ and is now farther away. We added riprap to address the water seepage from the slope for stablization. There is also riprap on both sides of the driveway to address the sheet flow.
Paul Nelson, GCC – A drywell would take it underground so there would be less runoff. At the last meeting we agreed on a drywell where the 2 roads come together.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That’s what I suggested – a detention area that would come together at that point.
Bob Grasso, PLS – We can make that deeper.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That’s where the natural flow goes through.
Bob Grasso, PLS – It catches the silt there & takes the energy out of the water flow. We can go with 4-5’ of rock there.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You show a small riprap swale that wouldn’t stop anything.
Bob Grasso, PLS – It won’t go right over the rip rap.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It will if the flow is fast enough & the riprap isn’t wide enough.
Bob Grasso, PLS – That’s a 2-3’ wide swale. We want to trap & settle the water.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It’s going to flow right down there & past the swale. I thought we were going to have a subterranean drywell where the 2 driveways come together.
Bob Grasso, PLS – I can do that.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You just need a tank full of stone there.
Carl Shreder, GCC - The goal is to prevent the erosion. That’s why we’re having this discussionn.
Bob Grasso, PLS – OK, we can do that. The driveway is 10’ wide.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – How wide would the rock area be?
Bob Grasso, PLS – Up to 15’ wide.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are you planning on digging down 12” and putting crushed stone in the treads of the driveway?
Bob Grasso, PLS – Yes, so it will capture the water.
Paul Nelson, GCC – A 12” gravel sub-base. You’re adding that? Digging down 2’?
Bob Grasso, PLS – Yes. We’ve also added stone monuments & plaques, and stone bounds at the tree line.
Paul Nelson, GCC – What’s proposed on the other side of the bounds? It is grass there now but shouldn’t be.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We discussed low shrubs.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The plan shows it as lawn. It can’t be that.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – That’s correct. That’s a definite change that has to be made.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We could add it as re-planting plan with a mix of plants – not just a garden blueberry patch, but an environmentally friendly mix.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There are still variances all over on the road. The setbacks are applicable to a wellhead protection area. It has to say “restored as natural state”.
Mike Birmingham, GCC –We have to define what we’re restoring it to.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We could just say a restoration plan as defined by the agent.
Tom Howland, GCC – You should use silt sock instead of haybales.
Paul Nelson - Standard conditions say a 50’ No-Cut No-Disturb zone but it should be 100’ as there are Special Condition for the wellhead area. You need to make that change on the plan. It makes it look like it’s OK because it’s outside the 50’, but it’s really a 100’ requirement.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You also need to remove the references to a maintained lawn.
Carl Shreder, GCC – And take the early road off the plan.
Bob Grasso, PLS – We wanted to show where the project started.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – There was never a graveled driveway in that position either.
GCC – Remove references to the maintained lawn; remove the early road; add the perpetual condition that the road will not be paved at any time in the future (in OOC & Perpetual Conditions of the CoC).
Paul Nelson, GCC – My issue is that real alternatives have not been explored or used. If you brought the driveway in the back you could get rid of all work in the area.
Mark Unger, Owner – I wanted to keep the original driveway but compromised to where we are now.
Carl Shreder, GCC – They want to vote on this plan. So this is the plan we’re making revisions to.
Charles Waters, GCC - Could you explain why it is not feasible to use the existing driveway?
Mark Unger, Owner – Because it is a farm. The driveway cuts close to my water, the drywell, and where the kids play (note that the “kids” are teenagers”. I just want access to my farm area.
Charles Waters, GCC – What is it about the existence of a farm that makes a different driveway not feasible?
Mark Unger, Owner – It’s how it works for access to the barn with mulching activities and for the people living there as well as farming.
Charles Waters, GCC – There is a water faucet & drywell in this area for a heating system? Does that keep you from extending the paved driveway to where you want to go?
Mark Unger, Owner – Yes, they are permanent structures with underground pipes, etc for the well.
Paul Nelson, GCC – How affected by adding on to the current road would these pipes be?
Bob Grasso, PLS – It’s a matter of safety for his children. He wants no more vehicles coming through there – contractors etc - for safety.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We’re only talking about 2 trucks a day for one short period in one season.
Mark Unger, Owner – That’s their play area and my existing driveway.
Charles Waters, GCC – So there’s a drywell, pipes, vehicular traffic, safety – are those all the issues?
Mark Unger, Owner – Yes.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was this originally a farm? Where was the road? This was originally heavily forested back there.
Bob Grasso, PLS – Heavily pine forested, there was a track through the forest.
Mark Unger, Owner – It had overgrown for 30 years.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We’ve asked for all changes we see on the plan but want to get still further out of the buffers. We need a revised plan. We can’t accept this one as it needs additional documentation. It has to be complete to go in the file for the record. It has to be complete. We have some Commissioners who are not entirely happy yet. We have made significant progress but need minor changes to the plan.
Paul Nelson, GCC – An alternatives analysis would’ve shown putting the road out back. We never got that from him.
Mark Unger, Owner – That’s because I live there & need to take care of my kids.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The applicant wants us to vote on this variation.
Charles Waters, GCC – I reviewed the plans & minutes for this case from the previous hearing that I did not attend and am up to speed on the project and the discussion at the last public hearing.
MOTION to continue to February 8 at 8:30 – Tom / Paul / Unam
PARISH ROAD – Map 20, Lot 1 (GCC-2006-23; DEP 161-0648) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental; Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – The major modifications made in this project are to move forward with the Planning Board and GCC. The project is now for a SFH sub-division rather than an Over-55 complex. This has dramatically reduced the scale of the project. The basic elements are reduced in scope & scale, are some of the same. We are looking for variances for limited work in the 100’ buffer zone in front to get a common drive onto Larkin Rd; improvemts to the gravel driveway to the back. We want a common driveway to access the lots at the back. It would be dramatically less impact than a sub-division road. We haven’t filed with the Planning Board yet, we’re looking for informal GCC feedback on this concept plan then we will
initiate a Planning Board filing in tandem. This is not the final drawing. There is actually a slight rise in terrain where the property exits onto Larkin Rd.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – You showed it on the original plan and they were connected wetland areas. Now you show it as upland.
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – We did discuss that at the site walk.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We need to see how this was accepted by the Commission & what the 3rd party reviewer said.
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – We noticed it at the site walk.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You are not withdrawing the original NOI?
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – No. We’re not asking the Commission to vote on this plan, just to give feedback to continue with. It has been submitted with the record & as it is filed with the Planning Board it will come to the Commission as well.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – This doesn’t look anything like the original. Aren’t you filing a new NOI?
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – The plan is essentially the same but with less impact. We want to keep the process moving forward. We want to maintain the wetland line review done with this project.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s good for 3 years.
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – It’s easier for us to go forward with this filing, then move to the Planning Board submission & put the 2 processes together.
Charles Waters, GCC – The plan you filed with the DEP is for an Over-55 complex.
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental – We just want to substitute the plan with the same file number, just a revised plan.
Charles Waters, GCC – How do we go about this if it is a wholesale change – what about abutter notification, etc. Is it just administrative paperwork?
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – The impact is essentially the same but has been reduced.
Scott Edwards, 9 Parish Rd, Abutter – I have a few comments about the additional work that has to be done by the town to support this project. I am on the Georgetown Light Commission, so I know what is required. There are a couple of places at the roadway that would have to be rebuilt – this road is constantly flooding & has many potholes. There would also be significant amounts of work required on the wooden bridge that floods all the time.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Those are Planning Board issues.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – But work in the wetland to accomplish those things would have to come before us.
Scott Edwards, 9 Parish Rd, Abutter – That work is not shown on any of these plans but would have to be filed for.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – That would probably be a separate NOI filing.
Matt Broussard, Broussard Engineering – That would be a municipal filing by the town. It would not be part of this NOI.
Scott Edwards, 9 Parish Rd, Abutter – From my experience on the Light Commission I can say that pulling power into this development will have to go underground along the road. Also, looking at the back road to the back 3 houses, that culvert over the stream constantly floods. Maybe it runs down the road rather than come up from the stream.
MOTION to continue to February 8 at 9:00 – Paul / Mike / Unam
| 
