Georgetown Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
Second Floor Meeting Room
7:00 pm, July 15, 2010
Present: Paul Nelson; Carl Shreder; John Lopez; Mike Birmingham; John Bell; Charles Waters; Steve Przyjemski, Conservation Agent; Carol Fitzpatrick, Minutes Recorder
Vouchers:
Minutes: May 20 and June17 Minutes – approval continued until next meeting.
Signings: Certificate of Compliance for 15 Long Hill Road
MOTION to sign the CoC for 15 Long Hill Road. Nelson/Bell; All/Unam
Public Hearings:
Pentucket Pond Aquatic Management Program (GCC-2010-09, DEP 161-0707) – NOI (Cont. PH)
George Comiskey, 45 Old Jacobs Road, PRCWA, Chairman, water conservation committee
Mr. Comiskey commented on the drawdown. He explains that the Horsley Witten report on the website shows water flow. He said that the letter (from National Heritage) was sent to ACT. He explained that the fish community needs proper water flow for spawning. The letter said that they may have to move target dates or move the drawdown rates. Mr. Nelson added that the control mechanism is kind of crude. Mr. Comiskey said that there is no staff measurement. Mr. Shreder added that our goal is to minimize the fanwort and do the lowest drawdown possible with little Sonar. We stated that we need the comments from ACT and I recommend that we continue this hearing.
MOTION to continue Pentucket Pond Aquatic Management Program (GCC-2010-09) to August 12th, 2010 at 7 pm. Nelson/Waters; All/Unam
1 Lull Street (GCC-2010-15) – NOI (Cont. PH)
Michael Seacamp, Seacamp Environmental Consultants; Earl Martin, Applicant
Mr. Seacamp said that we are asking for a waiver for engineering plans since we are just stacking stones. He said the soil is slumping into the pond and is making its way into the pavement. Mr. Shreder asked if they are using only stone? Mr. Seacamp said that it will be built up and higher. Right now it is a 30 degree angle. We will bring it back to its natural level. Mr. Nelson asked him to explain the steps he will go through. Mr. Seacamp explained he will put the larger stones at bottom, a filter fabric. The soil is washing into the pond. It is a very shallow pond; it is 75 feet long. We will go up 3 feet and it is 3 feet wide.
Mr. Przyjemski added that you are filling in a wetland with this proposal. Why not dig out what is there and not add to the size of the pond. Mr. Martin said that if he starts digging back his driveway will start caving in. Mr. Waters asked what the distance is from edge of drive to the pond. Have we had a site visit? Mr. Przyjemski stated that there was an EO on this 3 plus year ago and we resolved it as best we could.
Mr. Martin added that when it rains hard the water can’t get out. Trees are dying, flowers, etc.
Mr. Lopez added that we have had an EPA scientist look at this with another project I have worked on (in Amesbury). The scientist gave us best management practices to work with a pond retaining wall. There is a new generation of pond slope bank repair using native, non-hybridized vegetation. One of the practices is to reduce the hard shoreline with soft landscaping. Mr. Birmingham said that every pond has this problem with trees dying.
Mr. Seacamp stated that this is not what Mr. Martin has in mind. We are not talking about a vegetated bank here. There is landscaping around the pond. Rocks are part of the natural landscape. You would be using core logs, like Plum Island. Mr. Przyjemski added that we are just trying to gather all of the facts. The EPA would be advising. Mr. Martin asked what holds this dirt in place without rocks? Mr. Przyjemski said that it would be vegetation and a silt sock. Seeing a plan John would be helpful.
Actions Items: Mr. Lopez to provide Mr. Przyjemski with a photo/plan of new pond slope bank technology.
MOTION to have a site walk for 1 Lull Street on July 20, 2010 at 7 pm. Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
MOTION to continue the hearing for 1 Lull Street (GCC-2010-15) to August 12, 2010 at 7:30 pm Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
2 Brook Meadow Lane (GCC-2010-13) - NOI (Cont. PH)
Valclav Talacko, Engineer, Hancock Associates
Charles Freeman, Applicant
Mr. Talacko said that they have a retaining wall within 2 feet of the driveway and a stone infill to remove some water. We want to remove two trees: one is damaged and one is near the proposed playground. We plan to move the shed outside of the 50 ft to other side of property. We propose to replace the two trees with witch hazel. We also plan to put up a screen porch. We plan to put in a stone shoulder to reduce the velocity of the water flow. The wall will not be water tight. The wall will stop just beyond the deck. It is 12 feet beyond the wetlands.
Mr. Waters asked if they have pictures and Mr. Freeman gives them to him. Mr. Freeman added that the fence is wrought iron. The wall is two feet with a wrought iron fence. The wall will stop the erosion in that area. It is a 5-7 foot drop. Mr. Shreder adds that we are dealing with an original poorly designed site. What kind of equip will you use? Mr. Talacko answers a two foot wall, we will use a small excavator. The wall goes from 2.5 feet to zero.
Mr. Nelson commented that he doesn’t know why they want to bring in stone and dig into the wetlands. Why won’t a regular fence work instead of a retaining wall?
Mr. Waters looked at the photo and asked exactly where the wall will go. It doesn’t look like 5 feet from this picture, he comments.
Mr. Freeman explains that after storms, water rushes down and is washing away the driveway with a 7 foot drop that is dangerous for my kids. The wall will prevent erosion in that area and prevent sliding into the wetlands. Mr. Waters asks Steve, if he agrees that the stone shoulder will prevent further erosion of the bank and is there another way that is less destructive to the area.
Mr. Przyjemski adds that he is concerned about the water weeping out through the rocks. The front section looks fine. It is a hard scape solution. Weep holes should be installed. I am not satisfied with the back. Mr. Lopez said that he has trouble with us asking the Agent engineering questions and we should have an engineer looking at this. Our Agent is not an engineer. We should hire a third party. Mr. Talacko adds that he is an engineer. This is a segmented wall. It is the least intrusive thing to do. Mr. Waters said that this is not a complicated engineering design. Steve has a ton of experience working with this and I trust his opinion and we do not need a third party.
Mr. Nelson asks how far back will the wall go. Mr. Przyjemski said since they want to flatten out the backyard, they are choosing a retaining wall. The fence can stabilize itself. Functionally, the retaining wall makes sense in the front area, where it is steep. Mr. Talacko explained they are trying to achieve a level play area and a more level backyard, useable for children. The wall is 35-40 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Waters added we try to limit the activity in this area.
Mr. Shreder adds it sounds like some of the commission members are okay with the driveway and the front retaining wall. The stickler is the back retaining wall and the playground area and the removal of the one tree. Mr. Przyjemski said the base of the tree is rotten and damaged.
Mr. Lopez asks what would be an even exchange. Mr. Przyjemksi answers it is usually 2:1. Mr. Talacko adds they are proposing to plant two witch hazels.
Mr. Waters added that he doesn’t like the retaining wall in the back. I didn’t see erosion issues. I saw natural, uneven topography. Let’s not do this in areas that we don’t need to. We have a lot of these developments built on sensitive wetland areas. We can’t just allow this to be filled in, leveled out, and carried into the wetlands. Why do you need the fence, he asks. Mr. Talacko answers that it is really just an edging. Mr. Przyjemski adds that the fence actually keeps people out of the wetland. The fence doesn’t bother me; the wall does.
Mr. Shreder comments that it looks like that the Commission has a problem with the back retaining wall. You need to go back and try to rework this wall into something less intrusive. You should work with Steve on this. Mr. Waters adds that he wants it to be clear to remove the retaining wall from the house to the punch bowl. We are comfortable with fence, playground, tree removal, and shed. Mr. Birmingham comments that the tree is not healthy for the record.
MOTION to continue 2 Brook Meadow Lane (GCC-2010-14) to August 12th at 8 pm. Waters/Birmingham. All/Unam. Mr. Waters: If the back retaining wall is taken off, this retaining wall is good to go at the next meeting.
23 Prospect Street (GCC-2010-11; DEP 161-0711) NOI
Janice Thompson, Applicant; Jim Benito, Son-in-law
Mr. Przyjemski explains that an 8 foot strip of grass will be planted with a 3 foot walkway. They need to get a septic in. They have been approved by the BOH. They would like to move forward. It is the best situation although not perfect. Mr. Nelson adds that they are replacing pervious with impervious. Mr. Benito said that it will be a full foundation with no basement. It will be 7-8 feet that we will fill in.
MOTION to approve the NOI for 23 Prospect Street (GCC-2010-11) with the proposed planting plan and to not accept the wetland line. Waters/Bell; All/Unam
MOTION to close the NOI for 23 Prospect Street (GCC-2010-11) Waters/Bell; All/Unam
10 Rock Pond Avenue (GCC-2010-13) continued NOI
Deanna & John Maglio, Applicants
William Holt, Professional Land Services
Mr. Holt stated that they have no issues with the DEP and the National Heritage. A site walk was completed by Con Com. One of the concerns was the grading to protect the house. The second question was the hay bales above the trees. Mr. Przyjemski asked if they could clean that up a bit. Mr. Holt said that he did not provide the plans because he was not aware of those things until today. Mr. Waters said that work will be done around the pond and affect the views of the neighbors. This is one of the biggest issues. Mr. Nelson asked that on the west side how they planned to take down the house without dropping junk into the water. Mr. Maglio said that he can put up some staging out of the water. He will put up large 6-foot metal fences, pulled away from the water.
Mr. Nelson commented what you are doing is taking down a whole house and that will change the vista for the neighbors. Mr. Maglio answered it will be a small house that we will move to the top of the hill. Mr. Birmingham added that the house is set back. The view will change for the better for the neighbors. It is subjective. Mr. Shreder added that it seems to have a more positive impact.
Mr.Bell asked what did we do with Rock Pond Estates? Mr. Waters added if the view has changed, we should re-notify the abutters. What is your time frame? Mr. Maglio answered that we will be in front of the ZBA on Sept 7th.
Mr. Shreder stated that it is the Commissions’ discretion whether the vista change will have a negative impact. We need to make a decision on this. Mr. Waters asked if we have to start the process again. Mr. Przyjemski comments that we really haven’t covered much ground.
MOTION for the Conservation Commission to decide, at their discretion, that the changes being proposed would not be significant change or impact to those around the pond but only those abutters 300 feet out around the pond. Waters/Nelson; 4-1, Lopez abstains.
Mr. Przyjemski added that the issues are to pull back the grading by the shed. We need a planting plan around the house, a 5-6 ft buffer. We are getting the house and the septic away from the resource. Mr. Shreder asked if they are taking the house down by hand? Mr. Maglio answered that he will pull it in with a small bobcat. Mr. Przyjemski added that time is important. They can go back and modify their plan and make our changes and come back. The planting plan will be 5 feet or under. He asks if the shed will come down. Mr. Waters commented that he would like to see 10 feet. Mr. Przyjemski said that the zoning board needs the application and the complete packet.
Mr. Lopez asked if the fire chief is okay with the proposed location. Mr. Przyjemski answered that he did not hear anything. I believe it was sent to him. I will check.
Thomas McGrane, 8 Rock Pond Ave, an abutter said that he believes that John should be able to build. My house will be affected by this house. He said the house will be 33 feet. Mr. Waters adds that it is not whether it would affect somebody’s vista, it is only in context of notification.
Mr. Maglio commented if the shed comes down, it will be better for me. This is a zoning issue. I will be losing some view so my house will be assessed differently.
Gerry Nadeau, 174 West Main Street, an abutter said that the 28 inch oak tree is a concern. It is staying I hope. The sick trees are okay to go. Mr. Przyjemski said it is staying. The sick trees will be removed.
Mr. Birmingham asked how many floors is the house. Mr. Maglio answered it is 2 floors and an attic. Mr. Przyjemski asked how do you want to deal with planting plan. Do you want the areas locked in? Mr. Waters asked if the goal is to get the applicant to get the changes to us by next time. Mr. Przyjemski added when I receive the PDF I will send it to all of you.
Action items:
Mr. Przyjemski will check with the fire department. He will also send the PDF of the plans to the Commission when he receives it.
MOTION to continue 10 Rock Pond Avenue (GCC-2010-13) to August 12th at 8:30 pm. Waters/Bell. All/Unam.
Discussions:
Paul Nelson’s attendance at the Camp Denison planning meeting
Mr. Nelson explained that they are looking for volunteers to help plan events and work on the site. We did Biodiversity Day with them and that would work out better in the spring than the fall. They have a lot of ideas. Things like nature talks a fishing derby and things like that.
Mr. Shreder added I would like to schedule more time to discuss this. Przyjemski commented that Georgetown Days will be just a one day event to draw people in. Mr. Nelson added that it will be the first day of Georgetown days. They plan to bring in some entertainers. I will write this up and make it more definitive.
9 Gloria Road Enforcement Order
Barry Low, Applicant
Mr. Przyjemski explained that it was decided that we wait a number of weeks to show that the vegetation would grow back and without long term damage. After the site visit, the vegetation has grown back but the burn piles did not. The fire chief would never recommend so many burn piles. I have 3-point recommendation: No cut stone bounds, no need to re-vegetate, and no more burn piles in the area. Mr. Birmingham asked if the neighborhood will be notified of the no cut stone bounds. Mr. Przyjemski added that the property line does go to the water and that is not correct and will soon be changed. Mr. Birmingham asked if we will put the bounds in the back. Mr. Przyjemski said that 11 Gloria Road also said that his neighbor is cutting on his property.
Mr. Waters said that the bottom line is you are responsible for your own property. The landowner will have to establish that. That is not our problem. If it is on your property, the presumption is that it is your concern. Mr. Przyjemski stated that the bounds will make the property line clearer.
Mr. Shreder asked Mr. Low if these actions were happening on your property, why didn’t you come to us?
Mr. Low answered that 99% of what is cut back there is 11 Gloria Road, not my property. It goes down to the water. I saw him cutting on his own property. It was on a Saturday. The neighbors on the other side called to report me several times. I burned 10 piles, not 20 piles.
Mr. Shreder stated that he doesn’t want to be here next year. This should be a learning experience.
Mr. Low said that he burned but he did not cut. I would be happy to put cameras up. That would address my neighbor’s cutting issue. I burned directly after the spring flood. We had over 8 feet of water in that area. There was dead stuff, logs, brush, branches, and smelly leaves. These were ¼ inch bushes. Mr. Przyjemski added that it is mostly sweet pepper bush. Mr. Low added that the amount of sweet pepper was not 20 bushes. Mr. Przyjemski stated that he said that there were 24 burn piles, maybe not all from this year. Mr. Low said that this year I will not do that. I will call and then talk to you.
Mr. Przyjemski stated that his recommendation is the “no cut” will follow the tree line. The replanting is along the tree line. Mr. Low added that most of my house is in conservation jurisdiction. The house was built in 1962 when conservation didn’t exist.
Mr. Przyjemski added that the 1st bound will be a 35 feet to 80 feet. Four “no cut” bounds will follow the tree line, starting at the property boundaries. Mr. Low asked what are these bounds? Can’t we do something else not so esthetically disrupting? Mr. Shreder answered that they are stone granite with a plaque. They are used all over town. Mr. Low said that my neighbors are not going to observe these.
Mr. Waters added that we recommend that you have your counsel talk to Steve. What happened to your counsel being involved? That was our recommendation. We have had so many problems with Mr. Low doing things in the past. I thought that having the attorney involved would carry over into the future. I am disappointed that the attorney is not here. There is a problem the way you interact with the Commission. Mr. Low answered that there have been conversations with Steve and the Atty. Jeff Roelofs. My attorney could not be here tonight. He suggested that I make several recommendations. I should apologize, take a conservation course, pay a 100 fine, and install cameras. I will not cut or burn anything again without consulting you first. The bounds will not work with my neighbor.
Mr. Waters stated that we wanted a real, long term solution with your attorney involved that does not require us to constantly monitor you. A $100 fine does not do it for me, nor does cameras. I thought that your attorney would help resolve the matter. I like the bounds, it is a real solution. Why do you keep bringing up your neighbor? I don’t care about your neighbor. I think that you will like the bounds.
Mr. Lopez added that we will come up with the plan with the bounds and include them in your deed. Mr. Waters added that we should ask the applicant what he wants to do. I suggest you come back with your attorney. Mr. Low stated that he will come back with his attorney.
Mr. Shreder stated that we still have a standing EO. We will meet on August 12th again after 8:30 pm. Mr. Waters added that he really thinks that the 4 granite boundaries are a good simple solution.
West Street continued public hearings
Mr. Waters asked Mr. Przyjemski if he could please print out all of our communication for the next meeting so when we do meet we have that information. Mr. Przyjemski added that the DEP wrote the EO. The applicant has to come in. What is happening is the applicant is not going into the DEP. Mr. Waters asked if we can get a copy of that letter from the DEP? Mr. Shreder said that he will call Valerie and get an update.
Mr. Przyjemski commented that the one good thing is that the materials are bound to the soil. This site is stable. It is not detrimental, it is not getting worse. The fire dept has a big, red X showing that no one is living there. This house is condemned. I will ask the police, fire, BOH and see what can be done about this regarding tearing it down or otherwise.
MOTION to continue 47 West Street (GCC-2007-11) and (GCC-2007-12) to November 18th at 7:15 and 7:30 pm. Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
MOTION to close the July 15th meeting of the Georgetown Conservation Commission at 10:15 pm. Nelson/Bell; All/Unam.
| 
