GCC Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2008
3rd Floor Meeting Room
Attendance: Carl Shreder, Paul Nelson, John Bell, John Lopez, Mike Birmingham, Charles Waters, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski, and Sharon Munro.
~~~~~~~~
SIGNING:
- Bills
MOTION to sign bills. Tom/John B. all/unam
-CoC for 5 Londonderry Lane
-CoC 269 Central Street
BUSINESS
Littles Hill Conservation Area Management Plan
John Lopez, GCC – Suggests that there be some oversight on the poison ivy control and stipulations regarding what types of recreational use. (I.e. mountain bikes) Need to look into grant money to oversee and/or assess the land management. Also, a mission statement should be included to express their long term vision and how they define the recreational area. Is there a liability issue with usage?
I suggested and it was agreed (as I recall) to limit poison Ivy control to the entrances to the Conservation area.
Camp Denison Budget
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – CDC is looking raise the amount of money in their revolving account because they are able to bring in more money now with their rentals. The proposal is already in but I am looking for the approval of the commission. So, they are asking to increase it to $9 thousand.
HEARINGS:
Twisdenwood Farms, 240 Andover Street
Applicant/Owner: Ben Bowden; Rep. Ben Osgood of NEE
Present: Ben Osgood, Jr.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Remember, we have put his off until a delineation was done and a 3rd party review.
Ben Osgood, Rep. – I’m not sure if the reviewer looked at the “C” Lines.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I don’t believe this was on the plan before.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I recommend a 3rd party review to assess the lines. I should find out what it would take to get the assessment. I also wanted to point out here is that the C-series goes up to the north. Test pits have been dug out within 100’ of a resource with no notification or permission. There is no Enforcement Order, yet. How do you want me to proceed? As I recall, the area in question was all disturbed (i.e. grassland) so there was no real need for a EO.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I could see a ditch that may contain water on the South side of the property
Carl Shreder, GCC – Let’s schedule a site walk.
MOTION to conduct a site walk for 240 Andover Street on April 26th @ 10am Tom/John B. all/unam
Carl Shreder, GCC – I do want to know how those test pits got there.
Ben Osgood, Rep. – The applicant asked a consultant to come in and run tests and they did.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Does anyone what to put together an EO?
Ben Osgood, Rep. – The area is all grass and no trees.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is there any contamination history?
Ben Osgood, GCC – No, there is no record of anything.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Have you conducted any testing?
Ben Osgood, Rep. – No.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Steve we want you to look at the test pits and inform us on them and we will then make a decision on this later.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, I will go out and take a look at them.
Carl Shreder, GCC – In the mean time, no more test pits, okay?
Ben Osgood, Rep. – Sure, no problem.
MOTION to cont. hearing for 240 Andover Street to May 1st @ 8pm. Tom/Charles all/unam
8-10 Pine Plain Road
Applicant: Nilson Tidd, Owner: Kevin Wood and Jie Tan; Rep. Elizabeth Wallis of Hayes Engineering
Present: Nilson Tidd & Mr. Ogren of Hayes Engineering
Mr.Ogren – This was originally filed in 2003. There was a possibility of some endangered species in the area and there were some issues of land ownership. At that time we received a letter from Fish and Wildlife. (What did it say?)
Charles Waters, GCC – Is the land ownership issue been resolved, yet?
Nilson Tidd, Applicant – No, we are still in process with that.
Charles Waters, GCC – The applicant has won in the appeals court. The trial court really doesn’t have much of an option but it would seem to be moving toward an approval in the applicants’ favor, as I understand it. So, I remember that we agreed to move forward on discussion through the hearings but, will not close the hearing until the trial court has made a decision and it was my understanding that the applicant understood that we will not accept a plan or close the hearing until the court has decided.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I really don’t have any material to review and think the applicant should submit a new packet for the commission to review.
George Comisky, Resident – I was on the Open Space Committee at the time this case was started and I’m wondering if there any issues with the land conversions. They will have to file with MEPA for MEPA thresholds for conversion of article 97. Maybe the town might want to acquire the property again. There is a process where the town would want to look at this and would mean that they would have to meet with the town.
Charles Waters, GCC – I feel that we should still be willing to hear the applicant.
George Comisky, Resident – I think you are not working with Town Council on this.
Dorothy Blanchard, Resident – This has been going on for a long time but when this whole Lufkin Brook property was bought by the town with the help of the state and federal government the town meeting book of 1971has all the dimensions in it and this particular property falls within those dimensions. In April 2004 I wrote a very detailed letter to the Con Com with something like 14 attachments to verify what I had said in my letter. Now, I went to town council and I think the selectmen took over after that. I personally have very really deep feelings about this that you are pre supposing that this is going to be judged in Mr. Tidd’s favor, if you are doing this I think it sets a very bad precedence to be setting when there is a conflict of ownership on a piece of land and if they should favor Georgetown it is everybody's time
wasted. I talked to Jennifer Soper in the office of the EEO she sent me an email which I made a copy of and she said that if the land is taken then it has to be another piece of land has to be purchased of equal value and quality conservation purposes and it can not be land we already own. And when this land was purchased it was to protect our water supply that was the main purpose of the Lufkin Brook Property. Now, I have all of the documents here for each of the Commissioners and Steve. It includes my letter, copy of Jennifer’s Soper’s email and my current letter.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Why are these issues just being brought to us now?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Right now this is conservation land.
Mr. Ogren, Rep. – There was no reason to believe that the land was ever taken and the whole preceding for the court case was that it was not taken.
Charles Waters, GCC – I would think that the trial court would be in the applicant’s favor based on the information I have received. I want to be clear that I am not implying that we are going to make a decision on this until we have everything in place. I simply want to hear the case.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We are just starting to talk about this after many years on the agenda. We don’t have any new information and some of us are just hearing this for the first time.
Paul Nelson, GCC – I want to see new plans with the delineations and wetlands.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – We have asked for new packets already.
John Lopez, GCC – Wouldn’t the Mullin Rule be considered here?
Charles Waters, GCC – We have already addressed that.
John Lopez, GCC – Okay.
Mr. Ogren, Rep. – I did not know it was requested that we supply any new packets but we can do that.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I will pull the minutes so you all can review them.
Charles Waters, GCC – We need the new plans and that would be the first step.
Mike Birmingham, GCC – …and green cards.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Keep in mind that the regulations could be different from when you originally filed.
Charles Waters, GCC – Okay, so we need plans, green cards and perhaps a delineation…
Carl Shreder, GCC – Is the commission willing to move forward with this?
All – Yes…
MOTION to cont. hearing for 8-10 Pine Plain Road to April 17th @ 8pm. Tom/John B. all/unam
10 Searle Street
Applicant/Owner: James Bussing; Rep. William Paulitz of Apple Assoc.
Present: Jim Bussing, Applicant
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – This is the new packet – we got this today.
Jim Bussing, App. – The house has been moved up here (pointing at the map) and is almost completely out of the priority habitat area. The grading here is for the septic and a little for the house and waivers 2 & 3 are pretty much the same but it doesn’t go beyond the 75’ buffer. In the area of the driveway there it is in the 50’ buffer zone.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – On the NHESP side of things, there is going to be some grading.
Carl Shreder, GCC – It looks as though the septic system is outside of our jurisdiction?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes, but it is within NHESP and it would be up to them.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Has the Board of Health accepted this?
Jim Bussing, App. – No.
Carl Shreder, GCC – The driveway was right on the property line, right?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes….well very close.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The waivers are the issues up for discussion.
Paul Nelson, GCC – As you got closer to the water the flora and fauna looked pretty much the same and the; quality is the same as what is being donated to Park and Recreation.
Jim Bussing, App. – (Explains areas for donation to Con Com and Park & Rec.)
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The access on paper is not as functional as reality especially where there are wetlands in-between.
Charles Waters, GCC – I don’t like the idea of access that is to be going through the wetlands.
Tom Howland, GCC – How much is he taking?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – …about 4 ½ acres.
Charles Waters, GCC – To me, it doesn’t seem that we should even be considering this land.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Can part of the question be about what part of this land we are willing to accept? Or should we be considering the waivers?
Paul Nelson, GCC – So, to reach the property from Martel Way you would have to go through the wetlands?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Yes.
John Bell, GCC – If you put in a soccer field in that area what would be the parking area?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Where would you want to go with that discussion?
John Bell, GCC – Well, this is a concern of mine.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – This is NHESP area and there is more to managing the land than dealing with us.
Jim Dimento, Park & Rec. –There will be limitations on that land anyway.
Carl Shreder, GCC – You can’t guarantee what the usage would be….
Jim Dimento, Park & Rec. – I didn’t want you to get the impression that we would use that land for any more than what we intent to use it for. There is a section where the fire lane is and we will be cutting through the corner to make the ability to move better.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I feel that we should have some say in this since this is being offered to the town as a package.
Jim Dimento, Park & Rec. – We have the intention to use this solely as a recreational area.
Carl Shreder, GCC - I don’t question that issue but, it would be a question on what this recreational area is going to be defined as.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I think we should have conservation access, too…. a dry access as part of this discussion in terms of the Open Space principles.
Charles Waters, GCC – Does the commission care how this land is given? Are we comfortable with the options being proposed?
Jim Dimento, Park & Rec. – We have bigger picture here and we would like to connect this and make access. This will be used as a recreational park.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Park & Rec. may be open to other uses for the parks and we could work together on the uses. The impact on the wetlands can seriously be affected by what you do with the land. So, we need to consider the uses for the land.
Charles Waters, GCC – Are you suggesting some conditions that could apply to the land use?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Well, if we could define the usage we could oversee it.
Charles Waters, GCC – The request that is being made with waivers is significant.
Carl Shreder, GCC – We really need to consider this as a package.
Jim Bussing, App. – Well, I am offering this land here to the con com.
Charles Waters, GCC – Well, then should we only consider the land you are offering us?
Paul Nelson, GCC – We could make some stipulations on the usage on the Park & Rec. area that is being offered. This could be as conditions in the OoC for the project.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Any more comments?
Jim Dimento, Park & Rec. – I think we will have to eventually work this out with the Selectmen but I think we will have to work out the details of the usage. So we can get some additional space for the recreational use as we are running out of space and the existing parks are overwhelmed right now. I am not opposed to working with you on how we set up the field(s).
Carl Shreder, GCC- We need to make sure everything is in place before we can consider this.
Chris Comisky, Resident – How much of this is uplands for the con com donations?
Charles Waters, GCC – …about 80% are really wet.
Chris Comisky, Resident – As a member of the Open Space Committee, I would like to state that there is a certain percentage on how much wetland to accept as useable land. It has to be worth it to the town.
Dorothy Blanchard, Resident – When Lisa Lane and Bussing Way were done I thought 20 acres were supposed to be given to the town. I don’t think this was ever done.
Jim Bussing, App. – I heard of this before and there was never such a deal!
George Comisky, Resident – We should consider the greenway, too. There are possible greenways that should be considered. As far as, I know you can not accept the land. It would have to go through the selectmen, first.
Charles Waters, GCC – The bottom line is that the applicant can do what ever he wants but we must evaluate what he is offering.
George Comisky, Resident – But this needs to go through the selectmen anyway.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Right.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, we need to hear from the BOH and find out rather they are going to accept the septic.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – You could write it in the OoC in terms of conditions.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – So, the Fire Dept., BOH, and the claim on the land…. I’ll look into that.
Carl Shreder, GCC – I would like to look at the house.
Paul Nelson, GCC – It doesn’t look like you could do anything else with that, the applicant has relocated the house to minimize resource setback infringements to the maximum possible.
Tom Howland, GCC – I have some concerns over the access for the Open Space.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – …so, options for access?
Carl Shreder, GCC – Yes.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, should we vote on the open space?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – There are still some details to be worked on later. The vote would cover the open space.
MOTION not to accept the Open Space plan as it is being drawn on the current plan. Charles/John B. all/unam
Carl Shreder, GCC – Please, indicate where the line should be drawn.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Are you saying that if he draws a new line you would consider it?
Charles Waters, GCC – It should all be open space.
John Lopez, GCC – I am uncomfortable taking the land and giving it to Park and Recreation.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, I am hearing that you would like it all….
There was a discussion here about the vernal pool in the ‘Park & Rec Area’. Jim Dimento (and I) indicated that this would be protected on its own
Jim Bussing, App. – Should I draw a new line? (He physically drew a new line including the area for the vernal pool)
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Now there are a couple more acres. Are we getting warmer?
Charles Waters, GCC – Yes, I think so.
John Lopez, GCC – I think that the vernal pool there would be severely impacted. There will be run off from the soccer field from the fertilizers and all.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are we going to consider the new line he has drawn?
Mike Birmingham, GCC – I would like to see the numbers of how much land is being donated.
MOTION to accept the land (Open Space) that has been modified here and drawn in on the plan tonight. Charles/Mike/ Tom/ Paul/ John B. /Carl – to accept;
John L. opposed
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, what I need is a modified plan with that new line drawn in, some of the things we’ve talked about in terms of the BOH, the fire dept. and …
Steve Przyjemski, Agent - …stone bounds, no-cut stone bounds the entire length of the driveway about every 30 feet. Do you want them around the whole property?
MOTION to cont. hearing for 10 Searle Street to March 20th @ 8:30pm. Tom/ John B. all/unam
47 West Street
Applicant: Richard Morello
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The applicant has requested to continue the hearing until April 3rd. They are not ready proceed.
MOTION to cont. the hearing for 47 West Street to April 3rd @ 8:30. Tom/Charles all/unam
28 Mohawk Circle
Applicant/Owner: John Tardif; Rep. Patrick Seekamp of Seekamp Environmental
Present: Patrick Seekamp & John Tardif
John Tardif, App. – Number 62 is the lot at question here. There is a history on this ….I put these pictures together.
Carl Shreder, GCC – Are there any grants on this property?
John Tardif, App. – I do have some information regarding the building permit with Mr. Ferrell at that time and I have the meeting minutes here to reference for this particular discussion on this particular property and he was prepared to present the septic and etc. I then acquired the lot. As far as the septic system it hasn’t to the BOH yet and within 100’ of BVW.
John Tardif, App. – If there is a vernal pool designation then we will work with it. All of the reports I had received in the past was favorable. The Con Com records that I was able to get were very sparse. The con com gave me this in 2000….we left off with the need for a new NOI.
John Tardif, App. – There is certainly some issues that will need to be resolved. There is history to this but I guess we will go from here.
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – The OoC is attached as we found it would be significant.
Paul Nelson, GCC – So, have you seen it?
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – Yes, but I have not thoroughly looked at it.
Paul Nelson, GCC –Here Paul reads OoC attachment 1 for 28 Mohawk Circle, if indicating that, among other things, there is acceptance of a vernal pool which will affect the proposed project.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – The BOH has not seen this yet.
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – This is almost entirely within the 100’ BVW. There really are not any options to move this outside the 100’ so we are asking for waivers.
Charles Waters, GCC – Is this buildable land?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – No.
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – Mohawk Circle is not an accepted road. This is a small depression here that has been flagged as a resource. I will understand if the commission does not accept the lines. The house has been designed in the same place of the original foundation that is out there now and I had to shift the house a bit based on the septic design. This is the layout of the proposed design but we are asking for a waiver based on the fact that we are in the wetland area. We can’t move it based on what we have and so we are asking for a waiver for this.
Paul Nelson, GCC – The ‘small depression’ shares a hydrology with the larger wetland across the road. In fact, they were the same resource until the road was built.
Carl Shreder, GCC – So, a con com has never voted on this, right? So, this is the first time a con com is looking at this to consider it?
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – Right, but there is some confusion over the labeling on 26 Mohawk so, I want to check to see if there is more information with that file.
Charles Waters, GCC – Do you think we should look at this as an existing dwelling?
John Tardif, App. – No, not a dwelling, but an existing structure.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, you are saying that it is not an existing dwelling?
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – Right.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, why would we care about the history of this?
John Tardif, App. – It is a unique piece of land with an existing structure and/or foundation.
Paul Nelson, GCC – But your plan is to raze the existing foundation and start from scratch?
John Tardif, App. - Yes
Carl Shreder, GCC – If you had a repair to an existing dwelling then that would be different but, this is a new construction.
John Tardif, App. – This is a pre-existing building lot that precedes the regulations. So, they do not apply to the lot and I would ask town council before you decide.
Charles Waters, GCC – So, you think that if there is an existing lot that our rules don’t apply?
John Tardif, App. – Well, there are building codes and etc. that will apply.
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – We didn’t come in with a brand new lot, we have a pre-existing lot that precedes your regulations and we are asking for a variance to build the house.
Paul Nelson, GCC – So, you want some sort of grandfathering?
John Tardif, App. – Essentially indicated this is what he expected.
MOTION to deny this plan as presented. Tom/ Charles all/unam
John Tardif, App. – I’d like to speak to your town council.
Charles Waters, GCC – You are asking us to make a decision based on ZBA laws and that isn’t our board. The new construction and with septic we are voting it down.
John Anthony, owner of lot next door – When that foundation was first put there it had a cap put on it and I don’t know if that has any bearing.
John Tardif, App. – I know the legal action that was taken with the lot next to mine and I will have to take this to trial to fight for this and know that it will be a similar situation.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent – I would like to recommend findings with the motion.
Paul Nelson, GCC – Well, every Bylaw of ours would be violated. There are special setbacks and more.
Patrick Seekamp, Rep. – We sent the filing to NHESP because we were right on the line. I hope you are not making any assumptions based on NHESP.
Steve Przyjemski, Agent –There are no assumptions here, there are clear issues with our bylaws. So, this is all the special setbacks?
Paul Nelson, GCC – Yes, special conditions in our bylaws apply due to the presence of the vernal pool.
MOTION to cont. state hearing only and to deny the local hearing for 28 Mohawk Circle. Tom/ Charles all/unam
MOTION to cont. state hearing for 28 Mohawk Circle to April 3rd @ 8pm. Tom/ John L. All/unam
| 
