GCC MEETING MINUTES
January 11, 2007
Attending: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Tom Howland, Charles Waters, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Roll call vote to enter Executive Session to discuss pending litigation and personnel matters:
Carl Shreder - Aye
Paul Nelson - Aye
John Bell - Aye
Tom Howland - Aye
Charles Waters - Aye
Mike Birmingham - Aye
Roll call vote to leave Executive Session and return to public meeting:
Carl Shreder - Aye
Paul Nelson - Aye
John Bell - Aye
Tom Howland - Aye
Charles Waters - Aye
Mike Birmingham - Aye
GENERAL BUSINESS:
MINUTES
MOTION to approve the minutes of December 14, 2006 – John / Mike / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain
BEAVER DECEIVER – OLD JACOBS ROAD
MOTION to approve up to $3500 to repair the beaver deceiver at Old Jacobs Road – Paul / John / Unam
HEARINGS
129 ELM STREET (GCC-2006-30; DEP 161-0649) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Kurt Young, WPI; Denise Brogna, Attorney; Carol Faraci, Owner
Kurt Young, WPI – (Shows earlier site plan with driveway on the right side of the lot.) The alternative plan had the drive on the left. The original septic system had less impact. It doesn’t comply with your bylaws but comes as close to complying with the lowest impact as possible. There is an intermittent stream to the right, a vegetated wetland at the back, and an intermittent stream that enters the property from south of the site. The majority of the house lot is within the buffer zone.
Paul Nelson, GCC – This plan is an error - 100’, as measured from the wetland would cut off 1/3 of the secondary septic system.
Kurt Young, WPI – I agree.
Paul Nelson, GCC – So it is all inside the 100’ .
Carl Shreder, GCC – The new septic isn’t outside the 100’?
Kurt Young, WPI – That’s right, it isn’t. It is outside the 75’ and complies with the state 50’ but not your local bylaw setbacks.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Has the BOH ruled on it?
Kurt Young, WPI – Not yet.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – The BOH won’t review it until after the GCC. Were the letters from the owner and abutters distributed before the meeting?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes, but we can’t discuss them outside of the public hearing.
Kurt Young, WPI – On the 1944/1953 maps it seems to drain water across the intersections of Brook / Main Streets. The drainage is from E-W across Elm St but it doesn’t show the thread of the stream crossing Elm St. There is no indication of a specific stream channel in older maps of 123 Elm – it is not as accurate as we may think it is.
Carl Shreder, GCC –What about another map?
Kurt Young, WPI – There are no maps that show that any clearer. This new plan has the same setbacks – it just flips the house & driveway to the other side. The reserve portion of the septic system is towards the intermittent stream on the North portion of the lot & closer to the small stream that goes under Elm St at that location. From a septic system standpoint the original plan is better for wetland protection.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Can you explain the alternative septic system that might work there?
Kurt Young, WPI – Yes but this is the best solution.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are others workable?
Kurt Young, WPI – The setbacks aren’t any better.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – The BOH requires that the septic system is a traditional system – not a new-fangled kind that might take up less space. For planning purposes we have to show an old kind in case the new one won’t work. If you give us an OOC you can make the condition that that would be explored as a possibility.
Paul Nelson, GCC – That puts us between a rock & hard place – deciding something that might not be true.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We’d have to know what you’re going to do before we could approve it.
Kurt Young, WPI – You can approve this with conditions– to help the BOH get on board with the idea of a new system. You can require the applicant to do due diligence to find a new system.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We wouldn’t know the end result. There would be approval with no known end result.
Kurt Young, WPI – We submitted letters from the occupant re. the history of the property & the drainage on property.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The history may be interesting but we are still left with an intermittent stream.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Our regulations state that even if a ditch was created, if it has hydric soils it is still within our jurisdiction.
Kurt Young, WPI – We are not disputing that. We are discussing the harshness of actions on the property owner. They have owned this property for a long time. The expectation is that people can use their properties. It’s a dilemma.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If it was only one issue for bending rules that’d be one thing, but it starts with the septic system within the 100’, the house is also house within the 75’, the driveway is in the 75’, there is grading and excavation within the Do-Not-Disturb area, there are walls being built within the Do-No-Disturb and 6’ of fill where the house is. The whole thing is an aberration. You are making a tight lot into something useable. If it was only one thing that would be something entirely different.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– This is from Deb Rogers at the BOH – “I never reviewed the plan. I rejected it in September because new construction can not be within the wetlands buffer zone.”
Mike Birmingham, GCC – What volume of fill are we talking about?
Kurt Young, WPI – That has not been calculated.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The fill goes all the way out to the wall to create a yard, then the wall drops 4’ to the wetland edge.
Kurt Young, WPI – The rip-rap defines the grading – otherwise it would extend the grading down below.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was this taxed as a buildable lot or not?
Carol Faraci, Owner – I’m not sure.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– It was taxed at a reduced rate as it was not buildable.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – How do you know that?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– I have the paperwork here from the Assessors Office.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It’s factored at 25% of the assessment?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– Yes. I talked to them as Marty Halloran said the Assessors had initiated the change in its status. They say they would never initiate something like this, only on request from another body.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – That was from the BOH – in 1988/89 they went to the Assessors & said it wasn’t buildable.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– The BOH told the owners it wasn’t buildable as they could not get a septic system outside the 100’.
Charles Waters, GCC – That is not a relevant issue to us.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – Your regulations are guidelines. You can choose to stay with them or bend. What she’s asking is not unreasonable. You can approve it or not.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Your goal is not to make us happy but to meet our regulations. It is literally impossible to site a house in there. The land is too low, there are multiple streams.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The regulations are not guidelines, they’re regulations to be followed. You could ask for a variance from the BOH to get a septic system in that area – have you done that?
Denise Brogna, Attorney – They wouldn’t look at it until you gave the go ahead. That’s what they told Marty Halloran.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– I talked to them about it, they said they didn’t consider it “because new construction can not be within the wetlands buffer zone”. They didn’t review it because they never accepted it – they rejected the plan outright.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t take that into consideration. I have the same concerns with your plan here – the house & septic system in an area that can’t & shouldn’t handle what you’ve proposed. Even if it is possible playing with the septic system – I have concerns that this is not a place for a house to be put. The real issue is, is any development of any house there appropriate? I’m concerned that it is not.
Kurt Young, WPI – From a wetland impact perspective?
Charles Waters, GCC – There is also an intermittent stream at the right side of the house. A proposed building within the 75’. The driveway within the 75’. The septic system within the 100’. The lawn right up to the 50’ Do-Not-Disturb area.
Carl Shreder, GCC – There certainly will be impact to the wetland.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Especially with that amount of fill.
Kurt Young, WPI – This is not a difficult site to protect during construction. The impact areas are minimal. The area has development all around it – most of it within 75’ of an intermittent stream.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If we say for you to go ahead, what happens to our regulations? This breaks every regulation we have.
Kurt Young, WPI – This is for an existing lot, whether the owner has the right to use this land.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Value can be achieved without building a house.
Charles Waters, GCC – What are we supposed to be considering value of? Unless you can tell me where it says that, I don’t think I should be considering the value of the owner’s land.
Kurt Young, WPI – No.
Charles Waters, GCC - We’re trying to comply with our regulations here. You’re asking for several waivers here. As I read the regulations here, I’m concerned about granting them. I don’t think you can put a house there.
Kurt Young, WPI – Other houses are this close or closer.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We try not to repeat the same mistakes from 50-100 yrs ago. That’s how we learn. If areas flood, we learn from doing this that the regulations are appropriate based on what we have on site. We need those buffers to protect the environment and public safety.
Kurt Young, WPI – Every town has different bylaws. The state regulations would allow this without any major objections. The state has established standards to estimate impacts.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Our bylaws have to be more stringent than the state’s.
Kurt Young, WPI – You have to be reasonable.
Charles Waters, GCC – Are you asking us to conclude that our setbacks are unreasonable?
Kurt Young, WPI – No. Just that this plan can be built.
Charles Waters, GCC – Should we be questioning our bylaws? Are we drafting or interpreting or applying?
Denise Brogna, Attorney – Applying.
Charles Waters, GCC – Right, that’s what we’re doing.
Kurt Young, WPI – You are trying to determine whether your guidelines are pertinent to this lot.
Paul Nelson, GCC – If we allow this to go forward how can we possibly protect anything else in town?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Yeah, what he said.
Kurt Young, WPI – It’s a reasonable expectation that she should be able to put a house on her property.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It’s categorized as unbuildable. So would she pay back taxes on this lot?
Kurt Young, WPI – I don’t know. It could change at any time – if a sewer system came into town, or new kind of septic system.
Paul Nelson, GCC - Even putting in a sewer system wouldn’t make this lot buildable there are still so many other waivers to be granted. There is a wall in the Do Not Disturb area.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Anyone can say they can keep impact out of the wetland – but you don’t know. That’s why we have the regulations we have. You can’t say there will be no impact with any guarantee.
Kurt Young, WPI – The impact of beavers has had larger impact than any house building has.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – If you truly feel no house can be put on the lot we need to know that & record it. If you want a smaller house we need to know that too.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What could you come back with?
Denise Brogna, Attorney – A 2 bedroom & 1.5 bath, but it won’t make much of a difference.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting on any plan without knowing how the BOH views it. We have never approved a plan without BOH approval of the septic. Never to my knowledge.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – What about a smaller home? If we plan a smaller home & you still have the same objections we don’t want to do that.
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s fair.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s fair.
Carol Faraci, Owner – I am doing nothing illegal. The town illegally trespassed on my land which made it illegal. Water runs across the street & into the wetland at the back of my property. It is nothing but muck & mire & mosquitos wetland. It isn’t pristine anymore as it goes into mushy marsh back there. It affects my lot but also 2.8 acres back there – many people are putting water in there. Water from the condos. Everyone from around me drains it into my land.
Carl Shreder, GCC – That’s how water works, it flows down because of the pull of gravity to the lowest spots and accumulates there naturally.
Carol Faraci, Owner – No, they put pipes in there under 97 where the condos were built and under Brook St. Nobody culverted it. It is all it coming into my property. The pipe from Alton Cook’s property to mine was done illegally by the town. The town has to make it right. This has cost me thousands & thousands – you keep asking for new plans & they keep doing it. Have you just been just pulling me along all this time? I am very upset that the town gave relief to people across the street from me but made my land un-useable. Putting in a house for my daughter & grand-daughter is the least the town can do. I have 3.8 acres, 2.8 acres is wetland. Are they going to rebate me for that until 1999? You came onto my land without
permission.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are you making accusations against this Commission?
Carol Faraci, Owner – Not several of you, just one. The town wronged me. They illegally went onto my land with no easement. If they hadn’t done it would we still be here tonight?
GCC – Yes, because you’re in many buffer zones not just that one.
Charles Waters, GCC – I understand you’re frustrated but your statements need to be addressed. When Commissioners go onto your property we’re doing our job. It’s one of the things we have to do to familiarize ourselves with properties – it’s what is best for the town and the applicant. That’s a good committee Commissioner. We’ve had you redo the plans because we’ve tried to work with you – otherwise we just open the hearing & turn it down. Our job it to apply the regulations to the plan you present to us. Everyone has done their job on your side. We have questions about whether it’s appropriate for the house you propose or not.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We normally reach an agreement with applicants after we work with them. That’s why we ask for more plans – to try to come to an agreement.
Carol Faraci, Owner – As far as we know this plan has never been rejected by the town boards.
John Bell, GCC – Have we talked of making an addition to the other house on other lot? That’s another way out. You could add onto the other house for your daughter.
Denise Brogna, Attorney – That’s not what we’re talking about.
John Bell, GCC – There are 5 different variances we’re talking about here. That’s could be a way out. If it’s an issue of needing a house, is that a solution?
Carol Faraci, Owner – It’s a 200 year old house.
John Bell, GCC – But that is a potential.
Carol Faraci, Owner – It’s rented for apartments now. I am trying to get them out of an apartment & into a small house. The abutters have no problem with it. Everyone else who was alive when Mr Cheney put the pipe in is dead. He just did what he wanted to do. He left his imprint on the town for a long time & I’m one of the victims.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are there any abutters here tonight? No. I have issues with the number of variances but even so, we have never approved a plan without knowing if the BOH has approved it or even accepted a filing. You haven’t filed with them.
Denise Brogna, Attorney / Kurt Young, WPI – They said they won’t accept it until you look at it.
GCC – That doesn’t matter.
Charles Waters, GCC – If the applicant comes back with a different proposal how will the commission react?
Carl Shreder, GCC – There would have to be significant changes.
Charles Waters, GCC – If they came back with a 2 bedroom / 1 bath & changed it significantly?
Paul Nelson, GCC – I can’t see that they can do it. It would just be dragging it out.
Charles Waters, GCC – I agree, but would the Commission be receptive to a new plan with significant changes to get it out of the 75’?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – They would still need variances.
Charles Waters, GCC - If they come back with significant differences can we consider it without waiting 3 years?
Paul Nelson, GCC – If it was only a couple of waivers……..
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The applicant said money is an issue so we shouldn’t lead them on.
MOTION to deny based on Georgetown Wetland Protection Regulations section 8.4.2 (Sanitary Septic Systems); 14.1 (Required Minimum No Disturb Zones); 15.2 (Required Minimum Setbacks from a BVW); 15.2 (Required Minimum Setbacks from a stream) and state DEP regulation 310 CMR 10.03(3) (septic) – Paul / Tom / Unam
Denise Brogna, Attorney – If we do anything with a septic in the 100’ will we be in same position?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– That’d be a new case.
Charles Waters, GCC – I think we’ve been over this – we’ve talked about it extensively – the issues, the plan, the money. From here the applicant will have to use her judgment as to what to do from here. I am reticent to give a recommendation re new plans. If you listened you should be able to work it out.
Carl Shreder, GCC – From my exp I don’t recall any cases when comm. approved new septics within 100’. It has been to court, we’ve won the cases. That goes back many years. I am the senior member of this Commission and I have never seen it any different.
MOTION to close the hearing – Tom / John / Unam
BAILEY LANE CONSERVATION AREA (GCC-2006-35) RDA (New)
Reps: Eric Sotnek; Linda Curtin; AnneMarie Curtin; Jim Gagne; Janie Gagne – Bailey Lane Stewardship Committee (BLSC)
Carl Shreder, GCC – I would like to thank everyone for taking interest in this conservation area. We need them to help preserve the area. It’s a difficult job and we can certainly use the support.
Eric Sotnek, BLSC – We originally got together 14 months ago to develop a management plan which is a work in progress. We used the Hampshire Woods plan & the Old Jacobs plan to work from. We are here to propose & get approval for improvements to the illegal road. We propose to remove the asphalt & restore vegetative cover. This would improve access, and improve safety issues of access. (Shows photo of road) The road was paved & built up. We will get rid of the asphalt, make the surface permeable and vegetated. We looked at removing the fill but it looks like it has been well stabilized & there is no reason to remove it.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I saw a lot of erosion at the site walk. It is not stable.
John Bell, GCC – That’s just because the road surface was pitching it with rain.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It needs stabilizing rather than dredging.
Eric Sotnek, BLSC – Yes, and to manage the water coming from Upper Bailey. (Picture of vegetated sides) The water comes tearing down the road from Upper Bailey Lane. (Another pic of vegetation on sides). This is a picture of JB Little Road where the asphalt has broken up in the years. In addition we propose 2 parking spaces head in at the bottom of Upper Bailey. We will formalize the entrance, remove the chains, make it more aesthetic.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You may need to make some sort of gate for the Fire Dept for emergency access.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– We could also put it in the ORAD to work with GFD. We are looking for some latitude in this approval as have to see what happens as we go along with the removal.
Paul Nelson, GCC – There are a lot of trails out there, will 2 parking spaces be enough?
Eric Sotnek, BLSC – There is also parking at the West St soccer fields.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– These are mostly for the neighborhood. Not many other people use it. If it gets a lot of use we could open another area. We are trying to start off more reasonably.
MOTION for negative determination with conditions as discussed – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike /Unam
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2006-36; DEP 161-0657) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Jacob Murray, Apple Associates; Matt Palis, Builder; Pam Margaritis, Owner
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – We last met in December. Since then we have changed the plan to include a pervious driveway; retain the trees over 10” except for in the driveway; moved the driveway outside the 30’ except for near the garage; the No Disturb zone has been increased by 1200 sf which is 1200 sf less disturbance in the Zone II area; & moved the house as far away as possible while retaining setbacks; reduced the roof & driveway area; added a drywell to handle the roof runoff; shrubs have been added to the Do Not Disturb line every 15’; added stone bounds every 30-40’ at the Do Not Disturb line. The front walk is shown as brick which is permeable.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – The structure in the 75’ is only the corner – couldn’t you get that out farther?
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – No, it would go within the setbacks.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– Remember that this is Zone II Special Conditions. The house has moved farther away but it is still within Zone II.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Are the wellheads at the other side of the perennial stream?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – So everything leaving this site will be swept away by the stream?
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The BOH considered this a repair, grandfathered from a house that was there 50 years ago.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent – Yes, but this still requires waivers. It’s all about the septic system. If you approve this you have to specify that it is a repair.
Tom Howland, GCC – Is there any evidence that there was a septic here before?
Paul Nelson, GCC – A water pipe came onto the property. The assumption is that there was because of that.
Charles Waters, GCC - The BOH says it was there? Did they base it on their own conclusion that it was a repair?
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – Yes.
Carl Shreder, GCC – If they filed with the BOH now it wouldn’t be considered a repair, but because they filed when they did it is.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We have on record that this is a perennial stream?
GCC – Yes, it is a perennial stream.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What kind of pervious driveway are you proposing?
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – I don’t know the specific type at this point.
Carl Shreder, GCC – But it will be porous?
Matt Palis, Builder – Yes. It could be stone but that requires a lot of sand.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes but some options allow better plowing.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– You could use pavers.
Matt Palis, Builder – We can do stone even if have to plow.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We don’t have a real preference as long as is porous.
Matt Palis, Builder – There is a drywell for the roof runoff so there shouldn’t be flow down from there. The gutters go from the from roof to the drywell.
Carl Shreder, GCC – What is the size of the deck?
Matt Palis, Builder – 10x10. It is on the plan.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– Will you use silt sock instead of haybales?
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – Yes.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– This doesn’t meet our regulations in many ways.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes but this lot, in comparison to many others, IS a buildable lot. It’s on a hill and they don’t need 10’ of fill, etc. This is a very different situation.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – And the wellheads are protected by the stream.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– This is included in the Zone II area, so it is technically connected to them.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have asked in the past for barriers to prevent breakthrough from the septic and the OoC can specify that it needs to be pumped out.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– In my opinion with the grade, etc it still doesn’t meet our regulations.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The only way you can approve this is if the Commission considers this a repair.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– I know 2 cases coming before us that are similar. If this isn’t a repair, we can’t do it.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We’ve seen this for a long time, so they have done their job in showing us what we need to see.
Carl Shreder, GCC – If this wasn’t a repair we’d have to consider it new construction.
GCC – That’s right. We need to be clear about that.
Charles Waters, GCC – This whole project is within the 100’, why are we focusing on the septic?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Bylaw says we need to use our judgment in specific conditions.
Charles Waters, GCC – But it’s a perennial stream, isn’t that considered to be 200’? Regardless of the Zone II it is still within the 100’.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Under our bylaw it’s a solid 200’ within a Zone II unless it’s an intermittent.
Matt Palis, Builder – This is specified as a repair to a 2 bedroom home which is what we’re putting in.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – We do have documentation that the BOH accepts this as a repair.
Charles Waters, GCC – But that’s just the septic. Are we supposed to ignore its application to the rest of the bylaw? Why should we take any notice of whether this is a repair in applying our regulations?
Paul Nelson, GCC – It’s a very small stream and is isolated from where the building is, not by fill but solid land, trees, and shrubs. We have to look at whether these things are show stoppers – otherwise we would deny everything.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The only thing this would set a precedent for is if it wasn’t a repair.
Charles Waters, GCC – I’m talking about the house in the 100’, not just the septic. The entire project is within 100’ of a perennial stream with a 200’ buffer zone. So shouldn’t we be even more protective of a perennial stream?
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – We’re outside the 100’ to the stream. The 100’ shown here is the line for the BVW, not the stream.
Steve Przyjemski, GCC Agent– It still has a 100’ No Disturb zone under Special Conditions.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We have to look at all these issues and decide whether they are a show stopper or not. These regulations were built to be very strict and we have to interpret them.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have to decide if it’s a repair or not.
Charles Waters, GCC – This IS new construction. The septic might be a repair, but that’s only for zoning purposes. For our purposes this is a new construction within 100’ and the entire project is within 100’ of a stream.
Jacob Murray, Apple Associates – We’re in the 100’ of the BVW, not the stream.
Carl Shreder, GCC – If this were an existing house would you vote to let them extend the house?
Charles Waters, GCC – That’s entirely different, this is a new house.
Carl Shreder, GCC – They have a rebuilding permit, there was a house there.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – To document it it would look like a repair. The water services are still there. Wouldn’t you say it was a repair if I showed you that documentation?
John Bell, GCC – They’ve done what we asked them to do. Just a corner of the house is within the 75’. I don’t have a major problem with it.
Tom Howland, GCC – I agree that they have done the best they can but I still see it as a resource area that needs to be protected & I don’t accept it as a repair.
MOTION to accept the plan dated 12/15/06 as a repair of both the septic & the house– Paul / John / 5 Aye, 1 Nay (TH)
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
| 
