Georgetown Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2010
Second Floor Meeting Room
7:00 p.m.
Present: John Lopez, Steve Polignone, Paul Nelson, Carl Shreder, Charles Waters
Minutes: July 15, 2010
Signings:
Public Hearings:
8 Bartlett Drive (GCC-2010-31, DEP 161-0723) – new NOI
John Decoulos, Engineer
Green cards were turned in. Mr. Decoulos explained that Greg Bernard (proposed buyer) was interested regarding the proposed septic, one month or two ago, and that it was approved. The house is being sold. The buyer wants to replace the poles. The present owner is filing for the new buyer. They want to replace the poles and keep it at the same height. Mr. Przyjemski asked have you considered a more natural, gentle approach, a more vegetated bank, such as coconut logs? Mr. Lopez asked do you have a Chapter 91 license? Mr. Decoulos answered, I have seen many concrete blocks used around town, on the corner of Spofford and Andover St.
Mr. Nelson added you are not showing the profile. Mr. Shreder asked, are you showing the proper measurement from the water’s edge? Mr. Przyjemski answered, I am concerned that the 32 inch wall isn’t embedded. There needs to be some kind of footing. Mr. Decoulos added we have six inches of stone under the block. Mr. Nelson commented this project doesn’t need to be done. It is good that you are removing the poles and replacing them. Mr. Decoulos said that this is needed before we do the septic system.
Mr. Waters asked, what would we like to see as an alternative design? Mr. Shreder commented that the cost may even be less. Mr. Decoulos stated that the house is ready to close so we may not have the time. He asked, would it possible to submit another design in the next few days? Once the septic is installed you cannot drive over the plastic tanks. Mr. Przyjemski added the new design would not call for heavy construction equipment over the tanks. If he started the septic and started on the new wall design, they would be working outside of the NOI. Mr. Waters commented that we cannot permit work done on a plan we haven’t approved.
MOTION to continue 8 Bartlett Drive (GCC-2010-31) to Dec 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm. Waters/Nelson. All/Unam
47 West Street-Tidds Junkyard (GCC-2007-11; DEP 161-0666) NOI (cont. PH)
47 West Street-Tidds Junkyard (GCC-2007-12; DEP 161-0661) NOI (cont. PH)
Mr. Przyjemski explained that he notifies the applicant when we continue. Mr. Morello said he is waiting to hear from the DEP. No work has happened at the site. Mr. Shreder commented that he didn’t remember closing out the original NOI. Mr. Przyjemki stated we have collected fees twice, in 2004 and 2007. There are 2 NOIs on this site. A new filing was filed from 2007. We have been doing EO work for a long time. Mr. Nelson added the EO we have been updating needs to be replaced with a new application/ NOI – which we were starting when the project went inactive. Mr. Shreder commented, I believe that more than 3 years has passed since the application/NOI was made. Mr. Shreder added you cannot deny and re-file the same thing. Mr. Waters said I think that we discussed with Steve pulling and compiling all of
the email to show that they are not in compliance. We want Steve to mark the times that they do not respond so we can fine them for not showing for the NOI.
MOTION to continue 47 West Street, GCC-2007-11 and GCC-2007-12, to Dec 16, 2010 at 8:00 pm at which time Steve will compile the data that proves they have not responded to our correspondence and we will take action at that time. Waters/Lopez. 4-1; Polignone abstains.
25 Charles Street (GCC-2010-30; DEP 161-0721) – NOI (cont. PH)
Mr. Przyjemski explained that this is a bank-owned property. Last time they didn’t have a sign off to do this from the bank. It is a complicated case. Mr. Shreder commented we can either continue, deny this, or they can withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Przyjemski said we can continue this for now but not indefinitely.
MOTION to continue 25 Charles Street, GCC-2010-30, to Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm. Waters/Nelson. 4-1; Lopez abstains.
101 Lakeshore Drive (GCC-2010-26; DEP 161-0722) – NOI (cont. PH)
Michael Caron, Applicant
Mr. Nelson, who attended the site walk, explains the project. Mr. Caron explains his plan and shows that he is replacing an existing wall that he is not putting anything new. Mr. Przyjemski explains that this was an Enforcement project. I gave him permission to finish the walls. The dock and deck are a new part of the project. I told him that if he wants to do something he should include it now. Mr. Shreder asked, how big is the dock you want? Mr. Caron answered 15 feet. Mr. Shreder stated there are multiple agencies involved in this, including two board members who also serve as Harbormasters (Shreder and Bell). Chapter 91 allows a dock. Mr. Przyjemski said he will continue to work with the applicant.
Mr. Shreder asked, how close is the deck to the water’s edge and what is it made out of?
Mr. Caron answered, composite. The deck is covering a native walkway. Mr. Shreder said we would like to explore a softer walkway. Mr. Przyjemski asked, is there a strip of asphalt or is it a driveway? Mr. Nelson commented the cleanest thing to do would be to tear out the asphalt. Mr. Shreder added the impact to the environment is increasing to what it was. Mr. Lopez asked, would you put crushed stone under the deck? Mr. Przyjemski asked, why do you need the large deck? The mitigation to the deck should be the patio. Mr. Caron answered, I would like a platform leading out to the dock. It would flow very nicely. Mr. Shreder asked, would you consider a smaller deck?
Mr. Waters asked, is the issue to the Commission what he is using to create the deck? Can’t a more natural material or soft scape be used to make it more natural looking or environmentally friendly? Mr. Lopez asked, did a landscape architect design any of this?
Mr. Przyjemski said I was thinking of narrowing the deck and adding a more natural landscape. Mr. Shreder added we want to keep the buffers green around the pond.
Mr.Nelson commented if the deck is not a requirement, then you can take out the asphalt and put in flagstone, making it more pervious. Mr. Przyjemski stated it is a disturbed area. If you were to leave it alone over time it would be fine.
Mr. Waters said we agree we have some consternation with the deck and need to narrow or eliminate that and get a softer landscape. Mr. Nelson added he has done a good job of getting square footage back there. Is there a real problem with putting in a flagstone walk? Mr. Shreder commented normally on a pond project, you need to notify everyone around the water. You need to take a pause and think of the lower section. Mr. Waters added we are fine with the dock. Do we have a problem with the patio? Mr. Shreder said he would like to see a buffer to the pond. Mr. Waters recapped we are okay with everything but we want this new deck to be more of a walkway with plantings on the side.
Mr. Nelson asked, with the patio on the middle tier, what happens in a big rain storm? You might want to take a look at the storm water now. Mr. Przyjemski added he is putting gravel around the side. He is not changing it much from before. How about planting a gravel border? There is no quick fix to fixing the drainage. You have 10-15 feet around there. You can put a tank underground or you can decrease the paved area.
Mr. Shreder added maybe you can use a drywell to one side. Mr. Przyjemski said or you can use a rain garden and that has to be maintained. Mr. Nelson stated the hill steep goes down to the water. The houses around there are all the same. Mr. Waters stated if we went forward with an EO we could go forward with the work. Mr. Caron commented, why don’t we put down an inch of gravel around the deck and patio area and adding some plantings. Mr. Lopez asked why don’t we just say no to the patio? Mr. Waters commented we don’t want to do that. Mr. Przyjemski added you have to give access from the wall, stairs and a pathway.
Mr. Waters said you will have to change this plan before we can approve it. You will need to resubmit the plan with the changes we have discussed. Mr. Przyjemski added he needs Mr. Caron to give us $250 if we go the Enforcement Order route. Mr. Shreder stated if you can live with Dec 16th with a new plan to start the project, we can avoid the EO.
MOTION to continue 101 Lakeshore Drive, GCC-2010-26, to Dec 16th at 8:05 pm. Waters/Lopez. All/Unam
MOTION to have Steve Przyjemski, the Agent, sign off on the Bond for the Pulte Parker River Project (Sand and Gravel), GCC-2003-066, DEP161 -0540. Nelson/Lopez; All/Unam
Caribou Court (10 Pine Plain Road) (GCC-2010-29) – NOI (cont. PH)
Jason Barnes, Applicant
John Tilton, Hayes Engineering
Mr. Tilton presents the site plan, revision date November 8, 2010. The commission asked for a dewatering plan, a box culvert and to put in conservation bounds. We also re-graded in the area of the wetland that you asked. Mr. Nelson asked, what is the dewatering plan and where will it be? Mr. Tilton answered I put it outside the siltation fence but outside the wetland as discussed. Mr. Przyjemski stated that the DEP had still not received the packet as of two hours ago. We have no comments from the DEP. Mr. Tilton explained that Parcel A2 is an ANR (Approval Not Required) plan that we will present to the Planning Board.
Mr. Przyjemski asked, why did you change the piece of land to an unbuildable lot instead of conservation land? Mr. Tilton answered the deed itself will say that it is unbuildable. Mr. Przyjemski said I asked what the plan would be for the donation and what the sequence of events would be. Why are we cutting down maple trees to plant maple trees? You might create some vernal pools. Mr. Tilton said we have made the improvements that you have asked and feel that it is a better plan.
Przyjemski added that the DEP commented that you are using rip rap when you can use the muck and push it back in. Mr. Barnes commented you could put some stone in and put back some of the material back in. Mr. Przyjemski I don’t see the DEP comments as recommendations, I see them as comments that need to be paid attention to. There are some outstanding issues. Mr. Przyjemski asks the commission, do you want Sequence 1 or Sequence 2? Mr. Nelson answered Sequence 1 fits in much better with our regulations. Mr. Waters added we still have to remember that the trees are out of our jurisdiction anyway. We don’t have any choice to continue with the DEP not giving their comments.
MOTION to continue Caribou Court (10 Pine Plain Road), GCC-2010-29, to December 16, 2010 at 8:10 pm. Waters/Lopez; All/Unam
Mr. Shreder noted the three issues to be resolved are: 1) the substrate; 2) label Parcel A2 as originally labeled to be donated “conservation area” and 3) label the replication area.
Discussions:
Stormwater committee review
Greenbelt land Wells and North Street
GAA turf field proposal at the present school football field (John Lopez attended meeting)
MOTION to close the meeting at 9:30 pm. Lopez/Nelson; All/Unam.
Upcoming Meeting Dates:
December 16, 2010; January 20, 2011; February 17, 2011; March 17, 2011; April 14, 2011; May 19, 2011; June 16, 2011; July 21, 2011
| 
