GCC Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2008
3rd Floor Meeting Room
Attendance: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, John Bell, John Lopez, Mike Birmingham, Charles Waters, Steve Przyjemski, and Sharon Munro.
~~~~~~~~
APPROVAL:
- Meeting minutes for: 1/10.
MOTION to accept minutes for 1/10. John B. / Mike all/unam
SIGNING:
- Bills
MOTION to sign bills Paul/Mike all/unam
-EO for 47 West Street
MOTION to ratify EO for 47 West Street with the rewording of the rain definition. Paul/ John B. all/unam
-OoC Warren Street
HEARINGS:
202 West Main Street
Applicant: Thomas LaValley, Rep. Karen Westphalen of Atlantic Engineering
Carl Shreder, GCC – I understand that the applicant is asking for a continuation.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, but the DEP is asking for complete flood storage and I have not seen any revisions on this plan. I would think they could get 80% but I think that they will not be able to get 100% flood storage.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Did the DEP respond with a letter or verbally on this issue?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – In a form. What they are asking for isn’t what the applicant can do. I think we could work with them and see what we can do.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Do we have a date?
MOTION to cont. to Mar. 20th @ 7:30pm John B. / Mike all/unam
Parish Road
Applicant: Parish Road Reality Trust, Rep. Mary Rimmer of Rimmer Environmental
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant
Dana DeLorenzo, Applicant’s relative
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I wanted to summarize where we have been…our engineer told us that we could put together 64 lot subdivisions with the Planning Board with a special permit. We went back to the drawing board and we had the preliminary plan approved where we were offering 18 acres of beautiful wetland. I know that there is a consideration for the uplands and what you consider good land. What I want to avoid is the impact to the area. I have always worked to preserve wetland and I think there is no impact on the wetland and that is just my opinion. The roadway with the 5’ culvert was put in when it was zoned industrial. I asked the DEP if I improve this roadway would be an improvement for the wetlands and so then why would we need mitigation? We have a situation where if we what to develop this area and having
talked to many persons about this, they feel it is completely reasonable to offer this huge area as Open Space. The debate the last time was about the lines and how they should be drawn. One point that was made was that this land shouldn’t be donated because of the tax reduction. How could there be significant impacts if we are going to make improvements to the roadway we are making improvements. I want to propose this plan that has been submitted to you already. In the Bylaw, it is reasonable what we are asking to do.
Dana DeLorenzo, Applicant’s relative – What we would like to have to night is have you vote on this plan we feel that it is reasonable. We talked about this enough.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Last meeting we voted on the Open Space plan that was being offered. The Commission requested additional uplands and wanted this as part of the plan. We have not heard from you. You are now bringing the same plan.
Dana DeLorenzo, Applicant’s relative – Yes, we can’t give up that section of upland because it represents most of the project profits.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – There are other issues that have to be addressed with the Planning Board.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You failed to mention (to the PB??) that this was a Zone II well head area.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Charles specifically asked for that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – …to restate how much upland are you actually offering?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I don’t know.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The runoff from the project will go directly into the Parker River. The stream bed will also have some utilities running through/under it, as well. There is significant work to be done on around the culvert that will affect runoff. That is a significant impact.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – We have squeezed this in a little area here as it is.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You are asking for us to bend our rules for you. We are asking you for proper mitigation in return.
Charles Waters, GCC – You keep saying that there is no impact here and what matters is what the collective decision of the commission. Don’t the seven impacts of this work that your attorney described in his previous letter to us clearly show that there are serious and detrimental impacts to the area? We can disagree on what amount of impact but for you to say that there no impacts are disingenuous. You keep implying that we are extorting you and that too is wrong. During the negotiations we have given you some ideas in the discussion on the significant waivers that you are asking for and we had hoped you were coming back in here with an advanced plan.
Dana DeLorenzo, Applicant’s relative – We gave and there was another asking and we gave. I understand that you can’t tell us what to do.
Charles Waters, GCC – What we tried to do is give you suggestions.
Charles Waters, GCC – Last time we suggested that we wanted more upland and when you returned we felt that that was such a minor increase and I thought you were going to come in today with some changes. It seems you are digging in your heels.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – In talking with the DEP I was given the impression that we are going to make it better and I don’t understand why we have to do so much mitigation.
Charles Waters, GCC – You cannot say that putting more traffic out there crossing the river versus no traffic crossing the river is going to make it better. You can’t tell me that will be better.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – If you don’t give us a waiver we can’t put those houses there.
(I thought the following was a discussion on them putting one house in the back area vs. 3. The applicant indicated he needed no waivers for the one house, only for the three. He talked about a putting a ‘horse farm’ back there.)
Charles Waters, GCC – Your own engineer told us that he would have to put in the same amount of roadway as one house versus many. Do you have utilities out there?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Yes.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I did talk to Mike Gabel and on a state level and it is not an issue. I do think we should get some documents on these hardship issues. We are talking about three groups of waivers: a waiver of river front (river protection), No-build/No-cut, and 100’ no disturb.
John Lopez, GCC – So, we are really talking about 10 waivers?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes. The entrance and exit will be an issue to be dealt with. Directional drilling will be a waiver; the bridge is a waiver whether the applicant acknowledges it.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – Do we have enough information to address that waiver for the drilling?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I think we should group the waivers.
Carl Shreder, GCC – But he has asked for a vote on this plan.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Right, but I wanted to bring up some points.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Do these things have to be on the plan?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Everything from silt fencing to stone bounds and etc. should be on the document.
Charles Waters, GCC – You have read these variances, right?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Yes.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, you know that it is stated in the Bylaw that the standard is that it should be reasonable to work in this area. I understand how you can believe that this is a decrease in the scope of work in that area.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Isn’t reasonable to let someone build there? The PB approved an 11 yield lot and we considered it to see if it is reasonable.
Charles Waters, GCC – You are trying to take rulings from the PB and presenting them to us as though they were our rulings. You have only asked us to look at the 11 lot plan. We never asked for you to reduce the houses, that was the Planning Board.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We never even got to that point with you.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Well, when we first filed with you it was a 44 lot proposed plan.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes, but you have reduced that by request of PB, not us.
Paul Nelson, GCC – You seem to be more fixated on making these houses quite large. We are here to protect the land and we must consider all of these things.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – So, you are going to force us to do something…
Carl Shreder, GCC – No, we are not forcing you to do anything. It is up to you…if you want a vote we can give you a vote.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Look at the no-waiver plan and see what you think.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – In one of the meetings the engineer did say that he could get more houses in there. I can’t remember the exact number.
Charles Waters, GCC – How can we agree to accept those waivers based on the bylaws? The question is that what is beyond the river worth getting the land being proposed as mitigation or a CR?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – You could do a through road and get 7+ houses. If we don’t put a CR on it at that time you will not be able to protect that back area.
(I posited that the goal of the Conservation Commission is to protect land. It would be better to grant waivers to the applicant and protect more of the land then just deny it all and risk development of the land at a later date. The ‘land’ in this context was that beyond the culvert.)
Paul Nelson, GCC – So, the idea is to protect as much land as we can.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Lot 5 is a buildable lot.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Based on what regulations?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I have utilities out there right now.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We are not trying to keep you from doing anything. We just want to protect as much land as possible.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Well, you can’t because it’s my land.
Charles Waters, GCC – We have spent a lot of time tonight hoping that you would have re-thought this approach.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Once I close the hearing we can’t go back.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I want you to approve this plan with the roadway in the plan. If you say there is no significant impact then we can build that bridge.
Charles Waters, GCC – Unfortunately, I think my efforts have failed in seeking for you to re-think this.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I want you guys to vote on the waivers tonight.
Carl Shreder, GCC – First off, that is highly unusual for us to do this.
Charles Waters, GCC – We have never done this before have we? Do you want a vote on the final plan?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – How can we vote on the concept?
Charles Waters, GCC – We should vote on this plan if they want a vote.
Paul Nelson, GCC – We will have to vote this down if they want a vote tonight.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Do you want us to vote?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – You say you can’t vote on the variances?
Carl Shreder, GCC – We have never done that and I don’t feel comfortable doing that.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Then, I would have to say no.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – It would be nice to have some closure on the specifics for the variances.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We don’t see everything on the plan…so, we can’t approve it.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We asked for the stone bounds at the end of the properties.
Charles Waters, GCC – The plan dated 3/21/07 is the one the applicant wants voted on?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I would think it would be the October 3rd plan. So, does this have everything you need to vote on this plan?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Stone bounds and clarification on the lots is needed.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The other thing missing on this plan is how the utilities are brought in.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – The no-yield plan has a well, if you want me to put something on there…
Charles Waters, GCC – So, are you asking for us to vote on the Oct. 3rd 2007 plan?
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – I want a vote only on the variances?
Charles Waters, GCC – We aren’t going to do that.
Paul DeLorenzo, Applicant – Well, if you are not comfortable with the plan then we should make changes.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The conditions can be included in an OoC.
MOTION to approve plan for Parish Road dated Oct. 3rd 2007. John Bell (not seconded)
MOTION not to accept the plan for Parish Road dated Oct. 3rd , 2007 based on the set of waivers in the front of the lot where there will be disturbance within 50’ of a wetland area and construction of an impervious surface within 100’ of a wetland area, number two: there are waivers that are required in the back of the property or crossing the stream that would be work within 75’ of the stream and work in the wetland area around the stream there will be impervious surface added within 100’ of that stream, the 3rd waiver would be work in an “Riparian Zone” and the 4th waiver would be working within wetland buffers for the utilities which are currently not shown on the plan with the assumption that they would show up somewhere within the 100’ of the wetland. Paul
N. / Charles W. /John L. /Mike B. /Carl S.
John Bell/Opposed
Carl Shreder, GCC – I would also like to see stone bounds.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Was Zone II mentioned?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes that is all special conditions setbacks. The setbacks are in the front and in back where the stream is.
MOTION to close hearing for Parish Road. Charles/ Mike all/unam
MOTION to open Executive Session to discuss litigation issues. Paul/ Mike all/unam
| 
