GCC MEETING MINUTES
February 8, 2007
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
BUSINESS:
FINANCES
MOTION to pay the bills – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to donate $200 to MACC for their 30th anniversary fund – Paul / Tom / Unam
7 MOHAWK CIRCLE TREEHOUSE
Reps: Mr & Mrs Vinnie DiChirico, Owners
Carl Shreder, GCC – The Town of Georgetown purchased the land next door which is now the Bailry Lane Conservation Area. We have pictures showing a treehouse that has been built from your property onto municipal land. We need to do something about it as the structure cannot remain on town property for liability reasons.
Vinnie DiChirico, Owner – Yes, we built it between 2 oak trees that we thought were on our property.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The problem is having a private structure on town land, and the liability that comes with that.
Vinnie DiChirico, Owner – It isn’t a big deal to take it down as our kids are grown up & we don’t use it anymore.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I can work with them on that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Good, we have no other issues.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We just need to make sure it is disposed of away from the vernal pool.
Vinnie DiChirico, Owner – We can dispose of it easily.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Can you take it down by the first of June?
Vinnie DiChirico, Owner – Yes.
GCC – Thank you!
BAILEY LANE CA SIGNAGE
MOTION to authorize the agent to spend not more than $500 on signage for conservation areas – John / Tom / Unam
HEARINGS
11 MARTEL WAY (GCC-2007-01; DEP 161-0659) NOI (New)
The applicant requested a continuation pending feedback from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program about the blandings turtles habitat thought to be on site.
MOTION to continue to March 22 at 8:30 – John / Tom / Unam
25 BAILEY LANE (GCC-2006-16; DEP 161-0651) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mark Unger, Owner; Bob Grasso, Professional Land Services (PLS)
Bob Grasso, PLS – We have revised the plan according to requests made at the last hearing. We changed the 50’ Do Not Disturb line from 50’; added a stone drywell to the steep slope by the existing grading; added silt sock instead of haybales; removed the note about maintained area as lawn – the replanting plan for that area will be determined with the agent using native plants.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This plan shows just the old roadway being re-planted. I interpreted it as the whole 50’ is to be restored. The restoration area - that area formerly mowed at the edge of the wetland - needs to be left alone.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The monuments show where that line is.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – This just shows plantings in the road way.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – You should make sure you scatter plantings all over that area down there. Are all the bounds shown on the plan?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We placed those by topo & current features and decided they didn’t need more. This is adequate because the area is obvious.
Bob Grasso, PLS – The grading stops at existing tree line. So that forms the buffer there at the tree line. From the beginning the DEP had no issues with the project other than the floodplain. Also, the Endangered Species program didn’t think it would adversely affect species – and it was closer at that time than is here on this plan.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I have a number of problems with this proposal. You are clearly working within the 100’ Do Not Disturb zone. My other concern is that the alternatives analysis was not thoughtfully done.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What did you look at with regard to alternatives analysis?
Bob Grasso, PLS - We have been doing this with the commission and the results are reflected on the latest plan.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That’s not to be done at the convenience of the applicant – to see if they can do what they need to do without waivers. Plainly, you can’t. If, however, you assume the existing driveway could be used you could do it without waivers. There IS an alternative but you have not chosen to go there.
Bob Grasso, PLS – There is a safety concern with that plan.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That is a self imposed hardship. You could build fences to keep the kids away from the area. This is a convenience issue for the applicant.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Mark, how old are your children?
Mark Unger, Applicant – 12, 15 & 17
Paul Nelson, GCC – So this is not really a safety issue for them? (No answer from applicant)
Bob Grasso, PLS – Mark Unger worked with the GCC. He pushed the road back farther from the wetland than it originally was. He is creating a No Disturb zone that wasn’t there before. And he got rid of the old barn down at the bottom.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The barn isn’t relevant to this. We are only talking about the access way. It was already dug out before this filing.
Mark Unger, Owner – It wasn’t dug out, it was pushed around with a bulldozer for leveling. I filled it in at the gravel pit area.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You are still within the 100’ setback in a Wellhead Protection Area.
MOTION to approve the plan with revision date 1/29/07 with a perpetual condition that the gravel road will not be paved at any time in the future, with a planting plan to be determined by the agent – Tom / John / 4 Aye, 1 Nay
MOTION to close the hearing – Tom / John / Unam
PARISH ROAD - MAP 20, LOT 1 (GCC-2006-23; DEP 161-0648) NOI (Cont)
Rep: Danny DeLorenzo, Owner
Danny DeLorenzo, Owner – We have asked whether the original Notice of Intent paperwork could be accepted for the new project.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The state’s concern is that they receive an updated filing & new plans as well.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The state wants the most up-to-date information about the project including watershed characteristics. The previous plan wasn’t detailed enough for water. If they have that they are happy to continue the hearing with new plans. In general, the footprint of the new area definitely reduces impact to resources but the project itself is significantly different.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We are also talking about how long a continuation it would be.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Will we be able to conduct an analysis of the wetland they say has changed?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – That is an issue we would have to deal with anyway, whether this was a new filing or a continued one.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We need a new site walk any way.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – They say the wetland line has changed since the original project was submitted. Really, they have removed an ILSF / BVW off the plan & are using it for access in new plan.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – If they changed the delineation I want it all done again.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We haven’t approved it. We have the right to say that it isn’t right.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – We can deal with that later. I recommend that we do not allow that change.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We are not here to resolve the line. Just to decide whether to continue or ask them to re-file.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Why should we continue if they are changing everything?
Carl Shreder, GCC – To save them re-filing.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – I talked to the applicant today. I did not tell him he would need representatives here tonight as we were just deciding whether to continue or not.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Is there a limit on additional changes to the plan? They are avoiding filing another NOI to save fees. We say the land to be disturbed can’t be dramatically different between the two.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – In some areas the disturbance is much less, in some other areas there are new wetland crossings. We are not approving anything tonight. I think the wetland crossing up front is significantly different.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The original project was filed with the Planning Board against their advice.
MOTION to continue to March 22 at 9:00 – Paul / John / 2 Aye, 2 Nay, 1 Abstain (CS)
| 
