Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
January 12, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I have 07:00 as the time. Megan Lally, I'm the chair of the Inland Wetlands Commission. It is Tuesday, January 12, and I will call to order the regular meeting of the commission. Go through roll call. Megan Madley chair is present.
George Elliott vice chairman is present. Commissioner Jim Halsey and commissioner Jed Larson are present. Is commissioner Ed Smith on the call? I believe commissioner Smith is absent and I heard prior to the meeting that alternate commissioner Monroe was not going be able to attend. With that, will move on to item three of the agenda, roll call and seating of alternates. Sorry, additions and changes in order to the agenda. Are there any additions or changes? Hearing none, we will move on to item four on the agenda. For a is the approval of the 12/07/2020 regular meeting minutes. I do have a comment. Well, before we discuss, we should motion.
Oh, move. I'm sorry. I'd like to move to approve the minutes as presented. Second. Larson will second.
Thank you. So, the motion was made by Halsey and seconded by Commissioner Larson. Is there any discussion?
I just thought perhaps it might be a clarification. The fourth paragraph, number eight, says system has not been installed due to code. And I I I don't quite understand what that means. What page are you on, Jim? Number eight, I think. Fourth paragraph. So on on page six?
I just made notes. Don't have the agenda in front of me.
Okay. So this is regarding the application for 129 Hebron Road? Yes.
It just indicated the septic system, I guess, has not been installed due to code because of code. Okay. I'm wondering if perhaps that could be clarified. I don't know what it means.
I'm assuming mister Hines is not on the call since that application was previously approved. Is there any additional comment or discussion on those minutes? Okay. So, Mindy, can you potentially go back and just check the tape for that and see if there's any clarification that we can offer for that? Yep. Yeah. I can do that. Alright. So unless I hear any objections, we will passes unanimously. The December 7 minutes are approved. Alright. So we will move on to the approval of the December 12 special meeting minutes. Do I have a motion?
Yeah. Halsey move to approve motions. Thank you. Motion to approve. Second.
You. Alright, so a motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Halsey and seconded by Vice Chairman Elliott. Is there any discussion? Just a typo. Under the first sidewalk, the the applicant's last name, I believe, is spelled s h e a. It's correct in the attendance, but not in the description of the application. My bad.
I only noticed it because my daughter's name is Shay. Any, additional comments or questions? Okay. I'm hearing no further discussion. I will guess we can. Hearing no further objections. How about that? We'll approve the Saturday, December twelve minutes as amended. All right. So those are also unanimously approved. All right. So we'll move on to item five on the agenda, which is public comments. Anyone wishes to comments, you can either use the raise hand feature or put in the chat that you wish to comment or I'm assuming we don't typically have a lot of people looking to comment so you can just speak up as well.
They can. This is Hank. Yep, go ahead. Just want to note that on behalf of the Conservation Commission regarding application 20 Dash 34110 Cone Road. We just when when that's discussed, could we provide some advisory recommendations for that. Absolutely. Thank you.
Public comment. Alright. Hearing none, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is item six a under old business. It is a jurisdictional review number 20 Dash 37 J R or 34 Lake Road in Andover. There is a an existing permits for an addition on the house that it looks like there's a question as to whether there needs to be a permit modification submitted. Agent Wagner, summarize what are any new materials submitted since the last meeting? Agent Wagner, you're muted.
No, I think we posted the permit online for the commissioner review. I didn't find anything else. Any any old copy of the permit or anything. So, yeah, something something new to add. Does the homeowner have a copy of the permit?
They couldn't find one. The engineer couldn't find one. I'm not sure if he's on the call or not. I am.
Not the homeowner for the record Brandon Hanfield. I'm the civil engineer. I was the engineer for the former owner of the property, which was John Connell and Nancy Farrell. They received the approval of the application. I did call Nancy to see if she had a copy, but they do not since they've sold So the that's about all I can offer with regards to the actual copy of the permit. I'm only relying on the information I presented to the commission in 2018, my discussions with John Valenti and the presentation materials I currently have from that original meeting.
Was not present at the December meeting, but it looks like this was pushed to further discussion for tonight's meeting. Is that correct?
Yeah, I think it was because of the late submission and there wasn't sufficient time to kind of absorb the plan that we submitted. The plan still stands. It's no different. I'm happy to put it up on the screen and go through it again. Know, since you weren't there, I could do that.
So has a, it seems that a permit modification request is warranted. I did, I went through the minutes and it sounds like there's changes based on from the initial permit and what the current homeowners are looking to do now, is that correct?
I don't know if it's necessarily changes that would warrant modification. The house addition is within the original footprint of the house that was approved. The only difference here is they're not doing the septic system and the extensive clearing that was required under the original permit. So it's not necessarily a change that would result in any impact. It's a reduction in land disturbance activities within the regulated area. So that's why we're here in front of you.
Don't Typically when it's a minor change to the building we wouldn't have to get a new permit which a modification would be. It would be either a review by administrative or in this case we wanted to take it in front of you and make sure we were doing the right thing to be upfront about it.
Anyone is calling in by phone, can you please mute yourself? Generally speaking, if you're not a commissioner or an applicant's representative, can you mute yourself? We're getting feedback here.
If you don't have if you can't mute it via your screen, if you have an actual phone and just press the mute button just so we can't hear you. There's three people that are on phones, for people okay.
Mindy are you if it becomes a problem, we may just have to remove them from the meeting and have them call back. Okay, I can mute them they just won't be able to unmute themselves so I'll do that from now on. You. Back to the conversation at hand. Recollection of the application, I do remember the site visit. Think it was one of the first ones I attended on the commission. Part of the approval was the, basically the redoing of the the drainage for the the town road to prevent it from going down through their property and instead to a wetlands complex slightly down the road. So the approval was conditioned on that activity occurring as part of the overall application. So I think that's significant. I'm curious why was the septic system initially being proposed to be replaced and why is it no longer looking to be replaced?
As part of the sale, so the original plan had a code compliant septic system for the house and to do that we had to remove the town's drainage pipe that goes through the property without easement. The prior applicant, it ends up not being a prudent or feasible activity and made the project itself. Well, I guess it would be prudent, not prudent. So they sold the property as part of that sale. The buyers required that the leaching field be repaired. So instead of a replacement with a code compliant system, they did a repair, which doesn't necessarily have to be code compliant. That repair was done and is reflected on the plan that I submitted to you. So the current owner wants to put an addition on and we have to have certain separating distances to that repair. That's why you see
the addition is slightly smaller and step back from the lake to respect the separating distances of the existing leaching field and where it was. So that's the long and short of the history of the septic system and why we are no longer going out towards the lake to put in a bigger leaching field.
I think the question before the commission first and foremost is whether or not the change in activity warrants submission of a permit modification request or if the commission feels the current permit covers the activity. I will open the floor. Vice Chairman Elliott.
Chairman Elliott, my opinion is that this should not warrant a new application since the proposed activities are all within the scope of the original permit and really reflect less activity rather than activity in a different locus or of a different kind. Say that that was a motion.
That was not a motion, but I could make it a motion if you would like to make it a motion. That would be helpful. Okay, then I will move in our usual form. I will move that it does require a permit application.
Thank you. I see what you're doing there. Okay. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank I will reiterate that I oppose that motion. Any further discussion?
This is Jed, and I do have a couple of comments concerning the septic system. In reviewing the original application, it says in that that one of the primary functions of the proposed plan is the installation of repair septic system, design and construction in accordance with Public Health Code. The existing septic tank and leaching field are both undersized and located less than 40 feet from the well, which is approximately one half the minimum separation distance allowed by the code. While the applicant has been diligent in minimizing water usage and maintaining the system, the need for repair is imminent. And I think the upgraded septic systems are exactly what we're looking for in line with trying to protect the lake from poor, undeveloped, undersized septic systems. So I have a big concern with that.
So I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you just said, but I'm wondering if you could comment as to whether you think the change in the project description submission of a permit modification request?
I think that they are not going to follow the application. They should submit another one stating exactly what they do intend to do, and we can review the appropriateness of the septic system to public health code, which is what our goal is to establish. May I respond to that question? Sure, go ahead. Just
to be clear, the septic system repair was permitted through the Eastern Highland Health District and as built was submitted to them and a repair design was prepared by my office. All of those things were accepted by the health department as part of the repair construction and sale of the property. So what was put in there is currently accepted by the health department and a substantial improvement of what was there. But as part of repairs, there are certain things that may not be in compliance. In this case, it's designed for a house that is slightly smaller than what was originally approved. And we're staying with that smaller house than what your commission originally approved. So what you have in front of you is a smaller footprint of a house, less bedrooms, less flow, which can be accommodated by the previously existing septic system and the repair.
Mr. Halsey, do you have anything to add to the discussion?
I'm kind of digesting that, but there was some discussion about the duration of the permit, whether an extension was needed, and I don't recall the particulars.
The minutes stated that it had been a five year permit that was issued, which would Okay, mean at this that sounds right, yeah, thank you. I missed that.
So I guess what I'm getting at, we'll bring it to vote. I feel like we were basically discussing a permit modification without having a permit modification application submitted and the corresponding payment to the town to cover Joe's time for looking at it. And I don't know if it's fair to do so when other applicants go through the procedure of submitting a modification request and following that channel. I'm not, I don't disagree that it's a smaller footprint and probably overall a better design, but procedurally, I think that it should go through a permit modification request. But I'm one of four votes tonight. Is there any additional discussion?
I would just like to say that I would have an expectation that the homeowners would want a septic system that complies with our public health code to protect the lake. They're going to be living on the lake. They should be wanting to make the lake better. That's what the development of Lake Regs is all about is to ensure that we have septic systems along the lake that are fully compliant with the public health code. So I guess that means that I do agree that we should be expecting a permit modification if we're not going to go with the existing permit.
Just for the record, I wanna reiterate that it was done through the health department and accepted by them and the current health code.
So I think there's two conversations going on. And one is sort of the review of whether or not the septic system is appropriate. But the other is whether or not the procedure that's outlined in our regulations is being followed. And that's the one I want to try and focus on right now. Submission of a current modification request doesn't necessarily mean that anything would have to change from what you've put before the commission right now. It just means it would be following the procedure in our regulations. It could change, based on our review, but, that's not what I'm suggesting at this point. I'm simply suggesting that our regulations state that if, you know, a permit was issued and then the the permitee wishes to acts upon which that decision was made, that it needs to come back before the commission.
Do any of the other commissioners wish to weigh in? Okay, so Mindy, can you read back the motion that's on the floor?
Right now, it is that it does application does require a permit.
That was made by Vice Chairman Elliot and seconded by Chairman housing Yep. If there's no further discussion, I'll do a roll call vote. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? No. Chairman Halsey, how do you vote? Yes. Chairman Larson or not. Commissioner Halsey and Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Larson votes yes. Thank you. And Chairman La la I vote yes as well. So the motion carries three zero three one zero. Okay. So basically, what that means is just to start with an application needs to be submitted to agent Wagner. I'll check my personal hard copy files to see if I have anything going back to them. I apologize that the town records do not. And then we'll we'll review it at the the next meeting to see if the the existing permit, is sufficient or, you know, if the the commission would like to see any additional changes from what's being requested. Agent Wagner, can you work with mister Hanfield and the property owners to make it happen?
Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Alright. It would be recommended to see if you can get Alma to comment on the application before it comes to us in February. And then you wanna submit in February. Alright. So with that, we'll move on to item seven a on the agenda, which is a new permit application as a follow-up to a previous jurisdictional review. So it is application IWWC twenty dash thirty four submitted by Joseph Thoreau on behalf of Ronald and Joan at 110 Roan Road.
Agent Wagner, can you give us a summary of where we're at with this application?
It's basically it's a application that was in the form of the original jurisdictional ruling presentation. So most of the material is the same. It's basically the same plan. It's just in permit application form. Is the application complete? Yeah.
And the fees have been paid? Yes. I'll open the floor to discussion by the commission.
Hi, this is Hank again, this is the the application that the Conservation Commission was interested in providing some advisory recommendation.
Yes. I didn't see any commissioners want to speak so you can go ahead and hang.
So I'm just going to read a sort of our advisory letter here. Conservation Commission wishes to submit the following recommendations regarding the application pending application I WWC 20 dash 34 for a plan timber harvest located at 110 Cone Road in late twenty twenty the Conservation Commission initiated a natural resource and inventory and mapping project. The first phase of this project is focused on mapping natural resources associated with parcels located within open space corridors designated in the town's 2015 plan of conservation and development. The parcel at 110 Road falls within the Western Highlands open space corridor spans from the town's southern border with Hebron North through into Bolton. The quarter features several large interconnected parcels of land that support a diversity of forest and wetland habitats, including the state owned Bishop Swamp Wildlife Management Area. The natural resource inventory identified potential and I underline potential vernal pools within the parcel located at 110 Road Cone Road. Vernal pools in the forest surrounding them provide critical habitat for diversity of wildlife species and they are designated as a most important habitat in Connecticut's the state of Connecticut's 2015 wildlife conservation action plan. Three species of amphibians that require vernal pool habitat for breeding are also recognized of conservation importance in this plan.
The Conservation Commission is supportive of land use and management projects that promote biological diversity and other natural resource values, including forest management. Although the Commission recognizes that timber harvests are permitted as a right of activity under Connecticut's general statutes, the commission wishes to submit the following recommendations to encourage the application of best development practices or best management practices, I should say, associated with vertical pools that may occur on the parcel. The first recommendation is that the we looked at the looked at the mapping and it was unclear whether there was any surveys done to identify vernal pools. So the first is conduct a field inspection determine if vernal pools are present and if present flag them in the field. However, the natural resource source inventory identified the presence of potential pools based on aerial photographic interpretation. To confirm a vernal pool, it really requires an assessment of the biological community. That's how they're defined in Connecticut, which typically occurs during the spring or summer activity season for the majority of species. However, examination of potential pools during the winter when there is no snow cover can often be a reliable indicator and timing is also critical in order to complete timber harvesting prior to the onset of the spring breeding season, which generally starts in early to mid March in Connecticut. The following best if there are vernal pools that were identified on potential vernal pools on the site, the following best management practices are recommended around those pools. Forestry operations should ideally occur during the period November through February outside of the activity season for the breeding species
when and when the ground is typically frozen. Dry periods in July and August provide a secondary option outside of the winter season. Operations during the period March through June should be avoided. Ideally, the goal would be to leave forest habitat including ground cover intact with a zone approximately 100 feet around pool. If selective cuts are planned in this zone, they should avoid the use of heavy machinery and a minimum of 75% canopy cover should be allowed to remain standing within that 100 foot zone. Avoid any disturbance within the basin of the pool, including dropping trees or felling trees within that basin. Paul Minimize soil disturbance and avoid the creation of ruts throughout the area depressions or ruts created along access roads can fill with water and often act as decoys accepting breeding amphibians if depressions or ruts are created that may hold water, they should be filled with the completion of the operation. PAUL Use existing access roads and avoid locating any new roads near the pool and graveling of access roads should be avoided to prevent creating barriers for movement of amphibians across the landscape. Employ erosion and standard erosion sediment controls as necessary in areas of disturbance around pools. However, it is critical critical to to remove remove any any sediment and erosion fencing or other barriers that are employed once the operation is complete and the site is stabilized to once again provide prevent barriers. And finally, maintain coarse woody debris such as logs throughout the area to provide cover and consider leaving limbs and tops where felt they can provide some habitat.
So we just want to make those advisory recommendations available to the landowner. They're based on several standard formats that are out there. All those formats that are out there. There's assistance needed in potentially identifying if there's verticals on the site, we'd be happy to assist with that.
You, Mr. Greener. Mindy, can you pull up the the map associated with this application? Mrs. Chairman, can I speak to the application? Who is talking?
This is Joseph Thoreau. I'm representing Ronald and Joan Cherny. I'm a professional forester and soil scientist. Yes. Absolutely. Go ahead.
First thing I'd like to do is commend commend the conservation commission for for being involved in a wetlands permit application because I I'm I'm a wetlands agent for six different towns, and it's it's rare when when a conservation commission jumps in and and has some good good suggestions, especially something like this with vernal pools. Basically, what we're looking at, if you guys are looking at your the forest cutting plan that I prepared to facilitate the removal of the timber, we have two separate unavoidable bridged temporary stream and or wetland crossings that need to be to be done. If you look at your site photos, you can see at the site, the both of the sites where the crossings are proposed are narrow. They're very rocky. The bridge sections that are gonna be used are basically displaced down on top of these essentially rocky wetland areas. And they spread out the weight of the machine. The machine crosses both of the areas that need to be accessed by wetland crossing one and stream crossing number three diagrammed on the on the site plan are relatively small. You know, there will not be not a a lot a lot of trips needed to thin the timber. The way this timber is marked, it's marked according to a management plan that was done years ago.
Essentially, what this is is a thinning. All that's being removed are over mature trees, poorly formed trees, and some inferior species. In my opinion, when I mark the timber, we're probably only looking at somewhere around a quarter, 25% or so of the basal area being removed. So I feel that definitely falls within the within the guidelines as far as canopy cover. For the record, as a soil scientist, I do numerous vernal pool studies every year. I did not, to my knowledge, see any any vernal pools. However, there there are some cases where you will find small patches of inundated wetlands that will act as vernal habitat. You will actually see obligate species within these areas because although they're not what you would consider a traditional vernal pool with the typical basin that dries out, some of these these flooded or inundated wetland areas will serve as habitat. But again, I did not I did not see any any distinct vernal pool habitats out there. But I do feel based on on conservation commission comments that the description of this project here being more forest management as opposed to just selective timber harvesting designed to to make income,
I feel that at this proposed activity, number one, it it it falls under a definition of a permitted use as of right, but it also falls within the guidelines practices outlined by the comments of the Conservation Commission. At this point, I can entertain any any questions that the commission might have regarding what's proposed.
Any questions on Mr. Thoreau? Mr. Gruiner, do you have any questions on Mr. Thoreau that would help inform the commission?
I don't. I did look at the photos that were submitted of the crossing areas and none of those appeared based on photos to potentially support vertical species. Concern was more on other potential pools that we identified from the aerial photos that may be scattered in that forest area and just wanted to provide some advice for how to sort of you know handle any of those sites that might be encountered or you know the forestry operation in general but I don't have any questions.
The floor back up to the commission for discussion or emotions.
Chairman Lawley, I have a question regarding procedure. We did discuss the jurisdictional review at the previous meeting. And now we have we're in receipt of an actual application. Can we in your opinion deal with this application at tonight's meeting or do we have to defer it for the standard minimum fourteen days from receipt of application?
Yeah, I think any application needs to be, no decision can be made within fourteen days of receipt to allow for, public petition for a public hearing.
Okay, so we won't act on this application tonight, but rather at our next meeting.
So one thought that came to mind is since it's a new application, and we can't act tonight, we could schedule a site visit or in lieu of a site visit, we could see if Mr. Ferrero, agent Wagner and Mr. Greiner might be able to coordinate a visit to rule out any concerns regarding vernal pools on the property that might be affected?
I would certainly be open to that. This is Hank. I would certainly be open to that one. Would it be okay to ask a question now Megan. Doctor.
Yeah, one of my concerns is the timetable will drive in quickly towards spring and I understand that the you know the minimum of fourteen days for for application approval but was is it the plan to complete this harvest before spring. Yes.
Yes, it is. In fact, again, we were hoping to have a permitted use as of right call last month. The job would be done by now. However, now we're in the middle of a permit process. So yeah, you're accepting the application tonight. The logger is actually working on the Hebron side when he can, guarding the ground conditions. So provided we don't have a real wet January and February, then it's entirely possible that the the job could be done by then. Okay.
Again again, we can't we can't get started until you're you guys give us an approval next month. So it's you know, it's it's going to be tight. But again, usually with conditions with operations like this, when you start getting to your February thaw, your March start getting your March rainstorms and things, a lot of these timber harvests are they have to be shut down until favorable conditions prevail. And that's generally outside of your spring your spring time period. You know, the the vernal pool breeding starts about March. And, again, you know, by time by time summer hits and you're into your your warm weather of June, July, then everything's dry. They're all done. They're breeding, they dispersed.
One of the one of the things that a site visit could do is if if there was a vertical confirmed. You know, and we know where that is on the on the on the parcel, you know, that could be an area that could be prioritized for the earlier, you know, getting in there, you know, once again, you know, trying to phase so that that the area around that was completed before before the spring, there may be a way that that arranged I would suspect. Yep, absolutely.
Given the time frame that Mr. Thoreau and the applicants are working under, is there additional information that the commission would like to request now that would support, being able to make a decision on this application at the next meeting? The whole picture. Yeah. Not hearing any additional requests. Agent Wagner, are you available to coordinate with mister Groner and mister Thoreau to do, you know, a quick survey at the property to see if there's any any vernal pools or that mister Brunner feels warrant protection?
Yeah. I should I should be able to, depending on the day.
Think what we'll do then is ask you to coordinate offline with mister Gruner and mister Thoreau, and hopefully, we'll have a report from you at our February meeting.
Would there be any chance of scheduling a special meeting to approve the permit, like fourteen days after this one? Or would that push us pretty much push us pretty close to the next meeting, right? That would be the January
26, would be the fourteen day lapse period. And our February meeting, oops, isn't in my calendar, but would be February 1.
So there we go. There would be very little difference in it wouldn't expedite matters much to hold a special meeting for this permit application.
I'm available. I will make myself available if there is a meeting. Is
this a question on a site visit or on a special meeting? Special meeting. I don't have my calendar with me. I assume that I'm available. I don't know for sure. Oh, I take that back. I think we're doing the planning and zoning meeting that night. Really?
Because we put it off due to the Martin Luther King holiday. You're right. It's the twenty fifth, isn't it? Ours is on a Monday night. Tonight's Tuesday. Okay. Well,
yeah, I'm not available that Monday. I mean, another day would work.
Are you available on the twenty sixth? That's the soonest we could meet. I am not available on the twenty sixth.
Commissioner Hallisey, are you available on the twenty sixth? Yep. And vice chairman Elliott, you said you were available. Correct? Yes. I would be available on the twenty sixth. Okay. Would it benefit the application to have an approval a week earlier? How how significant would that be in terms of, you know, parts of operations?
It's gonna it's gonna get them out there a week earlier. It's, you know and, again, he probably doesn't have much more than I'm I'm gonna guess a couple of weeks of of activity to, you know, to to to reach what he needs to reach on the other side of those those two crossing sites, you know, on on the handover side provided ground can do ground conditions don't don't don't worsen.
There's obviously no guarantee of a decision one way or another, but it sounds like it would be in the benefit of the environment to have the operation if it's going to resume, do so sooner rather than later. So I would motion that we schedule a special meeting for Tuesday, January 26 to discuss this application. I will second that motion, Chairman Lawley.
It would be at 7PM. Should amend that motion. Any discussion?
I do have a comment. Would it be appropriate to have, like, the staging area on the plan and and tracking pad, anything of that nature? I I didn't see anything. You can certainly
I can I can speak to that? Yeah. If you if if you actually take a look at the the landing area that's proposed and that that's actually existing in Hebron, it is exactly that. Most most town DPWs wanna see some sort of anti tracking apron. So the trucks, number one, when the 80,000 pound truck comes out onto a road, it's not supported. It'll break the edge of the road. Right. The other reason is to have that riprap and it kinda it keeps the trucks out of the mud and they don't drag drag mud out onto the road for cars to go driving through. Is Cone Road paved at at that point? Yes. Yeah. It's it's all paved all the way through. Yep. It's been a while since I've been doing it.
Okay. Thank you. Any additional
discussion on the proposed special meeting? Alright, hearing none, I will call for a vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Yes. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. And I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. There will be a special meeting at 7PM on Tuesday, January 26 via Zoom. Details follow. All right. So continuing on with discussion of this application, Commissioner Hallisey, are you asking the applicant to provide a revised site plan?
I think it would be beneficial to just add those details, yes. Excuse me, what details are you asking for?
Just the staging loading area, staging and entry detail, entryway the rip wrap. Okay. Just a details on it.
Location. It's not in the end. Any additional discussion on this application or can we move on? Hearing none, we will move on. Actually, mister Gruner, can you forward the recommendations you read this evening just so they're in the record to, agent Wagner and the board clerk? I will do so. Thank you.
And then agent Wagner, can you, ask Amanda to post those online? Yeah. I can do that. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So that is just to item eight a on the agenda under old business, I w w c 20 dash 30, application by Patricia Clayman for 25 Cider Mill Road. This is an application to construct a bridge across Statenbrook and install a French drain within the Upland Review area. Agent Wagner, can you inform the commission there's been any new information submitted since the last meeting?
Yeah. There's some detail about crossing using a four by four or eight by eight posts in the stream bed, a temporary crossing. We discussed it, and the applicants expressed interest in modifying their application to include temporary crossing. So not a permanent bridge like they originally proposed, to allow this ex the excavator to cross for this project only. The applicant's thinking is that any projects that need equipment to cross Staddle Brook would need a permit anyway. So similar crossing couldn't could be included for future applications. So, yeah, we discussed something kind of low impact like a like putting posts parallel with the stream flow during a time of low flow and using that to cross the stream just for the French train installation. And they submitted a drawing last week. There it is. It's out of a, I think it's out of a, like a best practices book that you got.
So this is essentially, they would have this stored on-site and would put it in the stream as needed? Yeah. Just for the
duration when it was necessary for the excavator to cross and then remove it when it wasn't when it when the work was done.
Is the applicant on the policy then? Commission have any questions for Agent Wagner or any discussion?
Chairman Nulley? I'm happy to see this proposal to use a temporary stream crossing rather than a permanent bridge. I think that the the work that the applicants want done will be just as well served. And it won't require nearly as much well, it won't require any engineering per se, which a bridge certainly would. There were questions about stream impact from a permanent bridge given flood conditions on Stallop Brook and so forth. So I think that the idea of using a temporary crossing with like the pole bridge is much more palatable. And I would encourage the applicants to modify their application accordingly. Right now, we just have the notion of doing so. We don't really have a modified permit application. So I don't think we can really act on that information. But as I said, I think it's generally good idea. Megan can I speak about this at all? Maybe go ahead Scott.
Normally on a stream crossing like this the stream crop that's that's fine for stream crossing, you have to worry about entrance and exit off, you know, protection of the banks on either side, not just crossing the that's even more important is the credit protection of the banks on either side of the stream on the stream crossing.
Do you have any questions Scott in regards to that? Okay. I don't know if this was discussed last meeting. Believe there was discussion that there was a right of way access opportunity for this property that might have negated the need for stream crossing altogether. Is that still under consideration as an alternative? Agent Wagner or Commissioner Halsey, can I speak to that?
I don't think there was any discussion about the right of way. It was consulted with attorney brands, and he said to look at the project as presented, not, like, consider that. I I don't know. I I really wasn't considered an alternative.
Yeah, I just identified that there was an easement just because it was an unusual situation. The house is on the other side of the street, etcetera. I don't know what the approach would be using that that easement. I have no idea whether that how intrusive that would be. Reiner, do you know anything about that easement?
All I know is that the owner of the easement is is fighting to take it away. It's a talk talking to the applicant, and he's they seem like they're averse to using it just just because the the owner of the the property that has an easement is working with attorneys to to try and get that out of out of the deed, I guess. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but they were they're fearful of lawsuits if they use it. They thought the the owner would would claim that they were damaging the the bridge. So he was he was kind of averse to using it.
All right, well, we received this application back in November, so, I'll entertain a motion.
Chairman Lalai, I believe that we don't in my opinion, we really need to see formal revision of the application before we can deal with it. We have a proposal here, a conceptual proposal. But other than we have a couple of alternatives for temporary crossings. But again, we don't have a modification of the application saying really what they want to do. I think we're acting more in an advisory mode right here. And in passing, in reference to Seligman Persson's comment, the document that we have with the proposal for a temporary crossing does mention providing protection on the banks. Quote, Mark Williams indicated that his excavator would not leave any impact that would cause a change in the slope. If the IWEO requires protective sheeting, we will be happy to comply. So that was addressed and it would be on the west side of the bank because on the east side, there's no slope.
So are you requesting that the applicant provide a more detailed revision to the application? Yes.
Can I can I add something? This is agent Wagner. Yeah. Go ahead. Talking with the applicant, they weren't now that it's winter, they aren't in really any hurry. And with the COVID extensions, I think we have enough time to postpone it. That was my thought anyway. They wanted to put this forward to the commission to get their opinion on it, and I could work with them to provide something a little more concrete that maybe we could vote on next time. It was just my conversation with them, and we kind of came up with this plan and they submitted it late last week.
I think that would be ideal. I don't want to postpone decision just for the sake of postponing, but if it's to gather more information and submit a more complete application, then I think that makes sense. But I would say if in February we don't have anything additional, we should probably make a decision on what we do have.
Sounds fair. Mr. Nalachi, I hear Scott's concern and sounds very valid. I looking at kind of pictured visualizing the stream there, I'd like to see some detail on what what would be used. I can see where that I believe Mark will be using a mini excavator. The the contractor that's referenced here. I don't recall whether they're they're track metal tracks or or rubber tires. Nonetheless, I guess. Rubber tires? Okay. I just, I'd have to picture that, you know, I don't know how steep those banks are. It seemed to me that, that, I mean, it'd be nice to see a detail of what he's proposing to use to either side of the stream.
They may need to hire someone to provide. It sounds like the commission wants a more site specific detailed Yes. Of what they are proposing to do. And it may be that they need to hire someone to come up with that information between them and yourselves, you're not able to do so. So it sounds like the commission is asking agent Wagner to go back to the applicants and see if they can come up with a more detailed depiction specific to the site for consideration at the February meeting. And I would say, echoing what, Commissioner Hallisey said, taking in account, mister Prasanth's recommendations about protecting the banks. Any additional discussion from the commission? No? Okay. Alright. So hearing none, we'll move on to item eight b on the agenda, which application IWWC 20 dash 33 submitted by Jeff Miner for 97 Lakeside Drive. It's an application to reconstruct the seawall and remove a deck along Andover Lake and to also construct a new patio in the upland review area. And reading through the minutes from December, it sounds like the commission was waiting on, feedback from Alma on the application and that they had also requested additional detail regarding the patio and wall as well as storm water mitigation that would occur on-site. Agent Wagner, can you summarize any materials that have been received since December?
Yeah. I got a revised plan with the patio and then runoff control. And then there's some pop up drain emitters that are on there that the applicant said he would explain during tonight's meeting. I'm not sure if he's on there. I also got a approval letter from Alma with email and and a PDF file from the applicant this morning. I wasn't able to post it for the review today, but I sent it I emailed it to Mindy if she could share it.
She is having trouble with her town email account, so she can't access anything access anything that was sent to her right now. Okay. But they do have a an Alma approval email. Were there any conditions on that approval?
Not that I saw. Okay. But I didn't honestly, I didn't really look at it too closely. Is the applicant on the call this evening?
I am here. Via video, can you hear me? Yes. Is there anything additional you'd like to add?
Well, as Joe mentioned, he will I you know, the pop up drain emitters, there was discussion, you know, some concern about the downspout, the two downspout drains in the back of the house discharging out onto the lawn. I know another property, some people will put those into a dry well, a crushed stone dry well. I would be concerned about putting something like that above my septic system And to dig past my septic system, the the the septic pretty much covers the length of the or the width of the backyard. I would be concerned about digging past that, but the way a pop up emitter works, it's just a spring loaded cap. It's it's basically, you bury a four inch pipe that you tied a downspout drain into. They go in fairly shallow, and it's a spring loaded cap. So if you get enough water pressure, it pops that cap up the water drains out onto the surface of the lawn and then
it just pops back down. So that basically the top of that emitter sits flush with the lawn. And that kind of just lets the water disperse out onto the lawn and the grass will know, absorb. So, you know, any any water coming out of that. So I I would be more comfortable using those as opposed to putting in a, you know, like, say a five yard crushed stone dry well anywhere near my septic. Just don't think it'd be wise to be saturating the water or the ground around the septic with you know water in the ground like that. That's why I would opt to go with the emitters. We've used them before they work great.
Any questions on the pop up emitter from the commission? Right, maybe can you go back to the site plan then?
So, and then on the site plan, when we walked the property, I know I was pretty vague. We weren't really sure what we were gonna do, whether we were gonna use the existing concrete wall that was there. I think what we'll probably end up doing is taking that out. And so I down in the right hand corner of the of the site plan, I wrote 10 ton of stone. That's about what we'll be using. And then again, on the patio, I know I was pretty vague on that as well. So we decided we're gonna go with the tackle block paver system, which is permeable. We'll do a 350 square foot patio with the pillar in the corner and, you know, semi circle that comes out. So, I mean, I I'm not really a 100 sure what else you were looking for as far as being a little more concrete in my plan. Yes. That's probably much pretty much it.
Thank you. I'll open the floor to discussion by the commission.
Chairman Lalit. Go ahead. I think that as far as I'm concerned, the revised plan description fill in the information that was mentioned on the sidewalk and at the previous meeting. So I would certainly be amenable to going ahead and considering the application. For that matter, I might as well make a motion to approve the application with standard conditions for permits.
Is there a second to the motion? Actually, before I ask for a second, would you like to specify a permit duration?
I spoke to standard conditions as we have previously outlined. What would be the duration of the permit? Two years. There a second to the motion? I'll second. Any discussion?
I have a question about the timing of the wall work. I mean,
would that be done prior to filling the lake? I assume it would.
Yeah. We would definitely be looking to do that. Okay. When the when the lake is down. And this just to be clear, this project will probably not go for forward this this winter. I see. Thank you. Yep. You're welcome.
Your property wouldn't require any extra drawdown. Is that correct?
No. I don't believe so. There's as long as it's similar to what they brought it down this year, but I think they lowered it considerably more this year than they did last year. I know we we had issues when we worked at, I believe it was 410 Lake Road on the other side of the lake last year. We had water issues because there was a lot of we had a lot of rain. And so we had we had some days that were tricky, I guess would be a word. But no. I I think as far as drawdown on that side of the lake, it seems like it it comes we get quite a bit of room to work there. Would two years be sufficient to complete the project?
I would think. I mean, it wouldn't hurt to have another year on there just to cover ourselves, but I don't see any reason as of now, but, you know, think everything changes. But that's your call on that. I I always thought the permits were good for five years. No less than two, no more than five. Okay, I see.
I'm amenable to a revision of that timeframe, particularly if the second door is also. What would you revise the timeframe to be, George?
Well, per the applicant's request, we could say three years. Yeah, I would be content with that.
Commissioner Halsey, do you still second that motion? Yes. We'll go through on the amendment. Okay, any additional discussion?
This is Jed. I'd just like to ask, I know when we had discussed the runoff from the driveway, the applicant thought that was maybe a bigger concern than the bounce outs even. And I didn't know if you had considered any mitigation by a detention ditch filled with crushed stone or something at the end of the driveway to capture some of that. I'm not familiar with the pop up drain things, but it seems like that's just, you know, that's going to end up with the runoff water going down into the lake, whether or not we put that little pop up thing on it.
Yeah, I mean, you know, you're right. The driveway is a bit of a concern, but it's been like that for many years. I in the three years that I've owned the house, I've never witnessed water making it as far down to the lake. I mean, there's a couple 100 feet there, I believe, between driveway and the lake. My biggest concern with the water coming off the driveway is below the tarred portion of the driveway. It's gravel, and it tends to get washed out and muddy. I definitely want to do something about that. I was made attempts to contact
some pavement companies. I actually considered extending the tar portion down a little farther and then put some type of catch basin in. But due to the COVID issues, not too many people returned my call and the two that I did talk to said they were not taking contracts anymore this year. And that was old months ago, I think, or a month ago when I talked to them. So I haven't resolved that issue to answer your question. But as far as runoff making it all the way down to the lake, I don't really think that's a big issue. I was more concerned, like I said, the washout and my septic system is really my concern. So at some point in time, I definitely want to address the driveway. Some do something with the gravel area and put some type of catch basin and tie that into the pop up emitters. Or again, I'm not comfortable putting any kind of a dry well system in there unless I can actually get past the septic system and put it below it. But I don't really have an accurate description of my septic field size. I talked to the company that inspected it, and they didn't really have anything on file that told me what length my fields were. So
that is a bit of a concern. So digging in that area is gonna be gonna be biting my my lip the whole time until I'm doing work there. So I don't know if that answers your question. It is definitely something that will be addressed eventually. Thank you. You're welcome.
Any further discussion? Okay. So there's a motion on the floor made by, vice chairman Elliott and seconded by commissioner Hallisey to approve the application with standard conditions for a three year duration. There's no additional discussion. I'll do roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. I vote aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
And Chairman Lowell votes aye as well. So the motion carries 400. The permit is granted. It will be effective two weeks from today to allow for any changes. I pull a comment. Agent Wagner, can you work with mister Miner to make sure he has what he needs in terms of permit approval? Yeah. I do that. Okay.
And he'll he'll need a copy of the standard permit conditions as well as part of that. So but I I think he's relatively familiar with them at this point. Okay. Any questions from you, mister Rainer?
Nope. I'm good. Is it gonna snow this year? I hope not.
Mountains have no snow on them. Alright. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a good evening. You too. Alright. So that brings us to item eight c on the agenda application IWWC 20 dash 35 submitted by Kevin and Catherine Shay for 436 Lake Road Andover. It's an application to construct an approximately 2,200 square foot house within the Andover Lake Upland Review area. It looks like there has been a sidewalk since the December meeting that we can quickly recap. And then, the commission had requested information on the construction timing and on stormwater management and mitigation. Agent Wagner, are there any updated materials that were submitted to the commission? No.
Okay. Can you recap the sidewalk? Was there anything significant that you observed during the sidewalk? No. Will open the floor to discussion by the commission.
Yeah, this is Halsey. I just had a comment. There was a comment in in the minutes, I believe, or made somewhere along the line that water that flowed towards the road eventually made towards the to the lake, and I don't believe that's accurate. It actually flows across the little road down there, and it goes into Blackman's Brook. Not a big deal. I just, I just want to clear the record of that.
Actually, is there a second maybe we can pull up for this?
May I speak? I'm my name is Jim Dutton. We from Dutton Associates, civil engineers, land surveyors in Glastonbury. What Mr. Hallisey said isn't exactly correct. The plan has provisions to collect as many of the roof drains as we can. Thank you. Was trying to put this up and the roof drains discharge to the
well there's the north side of the driveway and then it will run-in a relatively flat swale along the edge of the driveway, and then ultimately cross the driveway, run overland, And if you can see this where my cursor, can you see my cursor on the plan? I don't know if you can. No. Bend
in the contour, it will ultimately cross the driveway, go north of the septic system, turn, and then wake it make its way back to the lake. The driveway itself comes up from the road then goes down and then back up to the house. So the water from the roof runs overland and across the driveway makes basically 180 degree turn or a and then heads back towards the lake. A very long circuitous overland route. I stand corrected.
Have we had a a town engineer review this application, agent Wagner? No.
I think that would be appropriate in this case. I can put it in the form of a motion since it'll probably be a budgetary expense. So I motion that we request that agent Wagner obtain an engineer on behalf of the town to review the proposed application on behalf of the commission. Larson will second. Vice Chairman Elliott. I vote aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
And chairman La la, I vote aye as well. So motion carries unanimously. Agent Wagner, I I believe we refused mister Hanfield's for the past applications, but we're not limited to him. But if you can get a professional review on behalf of the commission and report back to us with that information, I think that would be very helpful for this application. Does the commission have any additional questions, of the applicant or request for additional information? Okay. I would motion that we add this to the agenda for the January 26 special meeting In hopes that we can obtain the engineer's opinion prior to that date for our review. I will second that motion.
Okay, any discussion? Alright, hearing none, I will call for a vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
And chairman LaLee, I vote aye as well. Alright. So, mister Dutton, if you're available, what we're gonna do is we're gonna ask an engineer to review this application on behalf of the commission, try and get that report by the twenty sixth. We already have a special meeting scheduled for that evening. We can then proceed with review of this application at that date and time. Okay,
fine. Are there any other questions or comments that I could address while we're here? Septic system has been approved by the Eastern Highlands Health District that was done on November 20, I believe. And just by way of some facts and figures, the total disturbed area, there is no direct wetlands impact. The total disturbed upland review impact areas about 14,000 square feet. The site contains about just a little under 7,000 square feet of impervious area, including the driveway, which is less than 10%, which is a number that we kind of shoot for in most areas. The house itself is set back in the lake quite a bit. There's no there will be some clearing. If you see on the plan that the hatched area, those are sort of some ledge outcroppings.
There isn't really a lot of vegetation on those croppings. The applicant does plan on having a trail of sorts to meander down to the lake. The actual location, I think, should be fit in the field, perhaps with the agent. And the location where it goes to the lakeshore I hope my battery is running low here. I hope it doesn't disappear before I finish. The goal is to kind of put a little sweep in this trail so that if anybody's canoeing along the lake, they're not gonna look up this trail and look up into the living room of the house. They'll bend away and they'll basically see woods. There is an existing wooden deck
that was by the lake that will stay down in there, be rehabilitated to, you know, an extent whatever is necessary. We did try to the driveway pitches, like I said before, up from the road and down and then back up to the house. Most of it runs to the south and run overland and then turn and head back towards the lake. As much as the roof drain in a good portion of the driveway right up near the house will pitch into what I'll call a water quality swale and then back down and around. The septic system is well out of the upland review area in this proposal. The foundation drain, which would be a clean water discharge, likely will need to be blasted to get the drain in and the plan is for a surface discharge, but again that's a clean water discharge. And even that is a 100 plus feet away from the
edge of the lake. We are also planning on well slurry containment and a little further downhill there'll be a secondary sediment barrier if some of that well slurry happens to slip by the first barrier. If that instigates any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can.
Does the Commission have any additional questions in Mr. Dunn? Pardon me? Does the commission or agent Wagner have any additional questions? Okay. All right, then hearing none, I think we'll continue this review of this application at the January 26 meeting. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Alright. That brings us to the final item under old business eight D application I WWC 20 dash 36. An application for 26 Old Farms Road in Andover submitted by Eric Latuska and George Correa. It's an application to construct a wetland crossing for a proposed driveway and new house. I had a question regarding this application. The address, is it 26 Old Farms Road or is it a Pine Ridge Drive address?
The address is 26 Old Farms Road. What would potential you know what would follow the wetlands application here would be a subdivision and then probably a new address for one of the two parcels coming from Pine Ridge.
Thank you. Alright. Agent Wagner, has the commission received any additional information since the December meeting on this application?
We got a revised site plan or two revised site plans, but I think applicants engineers must be on the call today, but there are some changes to the Culver Inlets and outlets, I think. And there's some more detail. There's a cross section of the wetlands crossing. That's all I think we have for this month.
Anything significant from the sidewalk that you want to recap during tonight's meeting?
No, there was a I visited the site twice with Hank Gruner. He was gonna write something up. I'm not sure if he did. I didn't receive anything yet. I'm not sure if he's still on the call either. But
Joe, I'm here and I'm prepared to address that. Yeah. Okay. When you're ready. Very well. Go ahead.
So I'll read this and then submit this later. I didn't get a chance to write it up and submit it in time. I apologize for that. At the request of the Andover in the wetlands and water courses Commission on 12/23/2020 and the company, the wetlands agent. At conducted a field inspection stream crossing sites for a plan new access driveway. Tom Cruise: Proposed to be located off of a cul de sac on Pine Ridge Road between Lots Number 68 Number 74 due to heavy snow cover. It was difficult to visualize the habitat characteristics of the water courses present. So we conducted a second site visit on 01/09/2021. The focus of these inspections were to determine if there were any potential ecological
impacts from the proposed project. The proposed crossings occur along water courses that drain from the forested upland to the north. Although there are two stream channels which the crossings are proposed, these channels converge into a broader riparian corridor at the location of the proposed crossings. In other words, the Doctor. Paul They're coming off the more of an upland slope and they're fairly defined north of the crossing and as you get down to the crossing it flares out as you get into the lower slope, know, at the base of the slope, it's more of a uniform topography there. This riparian zone receives further input from another stream just south of the site that drains the uplands to the Northeast. This combined system connects with the Hop River Floodplain, which is located approximately 500 feet to the south of the site. Riparian quarter appears to flood annually like likely during the spring. The proposed crossing is for a 12 foot, I won't go into the details of the, you have the details of what the crossing is with the with the pipes and the fill. Although the proposed crossing design may adequately address water discharge, I am concerned about potential impacts to the natural hydrological dynamics of that riparian corridor and alteration of the physical characteristics of the wetland system on the site and downstream of the crossing.
In my opinion, the proposed design will likely increase channelization of the water course which results in scouring of natural substrates and increases sediment loading into downstream systems. These are important considerations given proximity of the site to the Hop River and its connection to the floodplain of that system. Tom Gregoire The Hop River has been noted as the town's greatest natural resource in the 2015 plan of conservation development. The Hop River is mapped by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's natural diversity database as an important ecological system that supports a diversity of state listed species. Site falls within the NDDB's mapped zones and lower stretches of this corridor and river floodplain provide seasonal habitat for the wood turtle a special concern species. PAUL And the habitat in that area from the crossing south is conducive for turtles to potentially move up in there season. Ideally, a crossing would be designed that bridges the width of that riparian corridor,
not just crossing the individual stream channels, but crossing what's in effect a broader wetland system there. Thus minimizing disturbance and maintaining the natural hydrological dynamics and habitat characteristics of the water courses and mitigating downstream impacts. Admittedly bridging is likely a costly option. However, exploring the feasibility of a timber deck bridge might be a consideration. Additional options to explore would be the combined installation of a pipe as proposed at the first crossing, the westernmost, where the watercourse channel is relatively well defined and sits tight up against the upland slope and the installation of a wider box culvert, preferably three sided, to span the second crossing where the watercourse is not well defined and is fanned out into the broader wetland system. Does the Commission have any questions of Mr. Gruner?
Chairman Lalit, I just had a question and comment. I guess that what we would need here to respond to Mr. Griner's comment would be kind of engineering advisory as to the feasibility of alternatives to the proposed design that would reduce the environmental impact that he describes. In other words, if we're going to ask the applicants to consider revising, we would need, again, an engineering opinion on the feasibility of these measures. I get the idea that the existing culvert design would channelize flow in that area, which we observed on the sidewalk to be relatively flat. As Mr. Grier pointed out, channel is kind of fan out there and it gets kind of vague and fuzzy as to where exactly the water is moving.
Okay, so are you motioning that the commission obtain an engineer review for this application as well?
I guess that's what it would take. So yeah, I'll make a motion that we, again, retain engineering review of the proposed let's show and make it specific to the crossing design or to the project approval.
I would not. I think since we haven't had someone look at the overall application, that would probably be beneficial.
Okay, so to review the application on behalf of the commission. Is there a second? Second. Okay, Commissioner Hall, two seconds. Any discussion?
I have a comment. I have a concern about work taking place off Old Farms Road. I mean, that driveway will be extended, and utilities will be installed in very close proximity to wetlands. And I don't see much up there as far as, I don't see silt fence, etcetera. Maybe it's there. I had a tough time with this plan. I didn't see any. Are you talking about up here on the Closer to yeah, further up, actually.
Right. Andrew Bushnell. I mean, we we can add that. I mean, you know, as an existing driveway that was installed a few years back, there was a part or I think before when the previous owners owned it and they just never followed through on finishing developing the lot of the House and the septic and whatnot so I mean we can show so fast. Showed ability to show soap fence you know through there.
Any additional discussion on hiring an engineer to review the site plans and application? Okay, then hearing none, I'll do roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye.
Commissioner Larson? Aye. And Vice Chairman Lely, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. Agent Wagner, since why don't you contact mister Hanfield and see if he can review this application as well as the other one? If he's able to submit his comments by the twenty sixth, that would be ideal. It would give the applicants a week. It's not a ton of time, but it's more than or less than a month to be able to submit any revisions that he's recommending if they so choose by the February meeting then. Okay.
If you could give me a couple of days, I'll add to self pensive plan here. Think looking at this, I might change the outlets on those culverts a little bit, just widen that riprap out at the end of the property line to try to widen the flow out there to decrease the channelization as it comes out of culverts.
Sure. And I think you worked with, Mr. Hanfield on the, the property down on Hendy Road. Right. Yep. Yep. Do the same and communicate back and forth as you need to to achieve the common the common outcome we're looking for. Okay. We'll do that.
Did I already motion to add this to the twenty sixth agenda? Mindy? No, you just mentioned that you didn't motion.
I'll make a formal motion that we add this as the third item of business for the January twenty six special meeting. A second.
Okay. Any discussion? Alright. So hearing none, roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye. Halsey. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. And Chairman Molly, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. So, we will revisit this at the meeting on the twenty sixth with, some review comments from a engineer. Do the applicants or mister Bushnell have any questions of the commission before we move on? No. I'm good.
Okay. Alright. So that brings us to item nine on the agenda. Enforcement actions. We have one pending enforcement action at 33 Route 87. Mister Bohm, construction in an upland review area and deposition of material into a wetland without a permit. Is this to should I infer that since the other property is not on the agenda, has that enforcement action been resolved at this point?
Yes. From what I I looked at the site on January 6. Yeah. Kurt and Mark Williams worked to remove all the all the material deposited on 41. They placed hay bales along the stream bed and put straw and seed down. The seed will grow, but they did it anyway. So the old stream mag is intact. I didn't notice any erosion during the visit, so I considered it resolved. I didn't see it originally, but it looked pretty good when I went there for the visit.
Was any formal formal report submitted to the commission indicating that the the enforcement action is resolved? No. Not yet. Okay. We should have something in writing. So if you can get that to us by the the February meeting just so we can close the loop on on that portion of the the violation. Mhmm.
Okay. And are there any additional updates on the the 33 side of the violation?
Yeah. It's the shed's still in in the place. There he's working with Mark. Mark Williams is working on trying to figure out how to move the shed with his equipment. That was last week. He was trying to get there by the end of the week, but I don't I don't not sure if he did or not. So yeah. He was gonna figure out how to move the shed. And then once they they cut the driveway, move the shed, and then they're gonna remove the the material behind the shed, and grade that. He left a pile next to the shed that's in the picture that I submitted. And they're gonna use that for finished work once once the shed's been moved. And then the rest of the material is gonna get removed from the property. He already removed two dump truck loads worth of material, I guess, already. So they're gonna remove the rest of that rock pile once they're done with it.
So, Mindy, that photo is fine too. So the material that we're looking at in this photo that's on the screen, is that going to remain on-site or is that scheduled to be ultimately removed as well?
Trying to look at what Some of it, you can kind of see the file to the lower right of the screen. That's like the start of the pile that's gonna get used for final grading possibly. There's some smaller stuff mixed in, and then the rest of it will be removed.
Okay. So only that I don't know. Scroll up maybe, Amanda. Okay. I might have gone the wrong way.
If you go to that one above, you can see up the up one more. You can see the pile is like a pile of a finer material past the larger rocks. That's definitely getting removed. And then the rest of it's getting kind of graded in some of this might get removed. There's some trees and some underserved material here though. So I was gonna I think it's gonna limit the excavator work over there because I don't wanna cause more issues. You see those existing trees in there if you if you want to dug all that rock out. That would remove or damage all that vegetation there.
Do you have a a time frame for when this might be resolved?
I don't. Hopefully hopefully soon I was gonna see if I mean, he's trying to get it done. I don't have an exact time frame though. It's it's kind of weather dependent this time of year with Mark and his excavator. So
Does the commission have any questions or discussion on this agenda item? Okay. Alright then. Hearing none, we'll move on to, Joe's report, agent report item number 10. Do have anything additional to report to the commission?
Nothing. I don't have anything in my notes. Nothing other than what I've talked about already.
Any general questions under this item of business before we move on? Alright. So here we move on to agenda item 11. Other business, item a and other business was an upcoming, conference that if any of the commissioners wanted to attend, let me know, and we'll see if there's money in the the training budget that we can use to cover your your cost of attendance. And then are you still on the call? I might have stepped away for a second. I can skip to item c. So it was brought to my attention, by someone from Alma that certain applications on the lake, our standard has been issued two year permits, but we should ask the applicants whether their activity is gonna require a deeper drawdown because they only schedule those every five years. So if someone is on that side of the lake, that a two year permit might not suffice for them and would be unnecessarily causing them to have to come back and submit a renewal fee. So we should just keep that in mind when we're renewing the lake applications. Are you there, Hank? I am. Yep, sorry.
That's okay. Alright, so we'll go back to item 11 B, which was the Andover rental pool mapping initiative. And I will let Hank speak to that item.
Thank you, Megan. On my like to speak without you seeing me actually. Doctor. Paul Yeah, Megan had brought to our attention had reached out to the Conservation Commission. I don't know, number of months back. Doctor. Paul She received some information from the University of Connecticut's climate corpse municipal assistance program on that, you know, puts out to commissions, you know, request possible projects that they may be able to get involved in and help support initiatives that municipalities might have. So what we discussed was a potential mapping project for wetlands in particular vernal pools that would be a joint initiative between in the wetlands Commission and the conservation Commission. Doctor. James We had a follow-up conversation because we didn't want to bring this to the Commission's until we really had a sense that in fact there was an interest in the project and the part of the folks at Yukon. Doctor. So there was a conference call held with the Yukon folks to talk about the project and there was indeed interest in it. It is dependent on some students expressing an interest because they're the ones who would primarily do the work in coordination with us. It would be led by the Conservation Commission, we would take the sort of lead role on communicating with the university to implement it and what it would focus on is
mapping vernal pools, doing a map of potential vernal pools town wide, that we then and doing some calculations of the intactness of the land around them, which is used as a standard metric that can be used for ranking them and that would be followed up with surveys that we would recruit volunteers from the town to, we would train them and they would conduct the surveys that would collect the biological information that would then be paired with the landscape mapping information to be able to rank the pools from a conservation perspective using a standard method. It's fairly widely used in New England. It was developed by Aram Calhoun and Doctor. Michael Clemens back in, I believe it was 2012. Doctor. Paul Army Corps of Engineers, I believe, has adapted elements of it as well. Doctor. Paul The program
project would run a little over a year because of covert obviously it's a little hard to do trainings and to really Doctor. Paul To get out and congregate with people. So we'd also be banking on the fact that we would not need to do the surveys until the spring of twenty twenty two so if if there are students interested in and the Commission's are interested in pursuing this. Doctor. Paul The likely work would be the mapping activities would occur this spring. Doctor. We would need to then reach out to landowners where that have potential pools on their property, similar to what we talked about earlier today in the in the meeting with the Cone Road site, we would need to reach out to landowners for permission to access sites to do the surveys.
That work would then be done the thought and then we would do the training in the following early spring late winter early spring and then conduct the surveys in the spring of twenty twenty two complete all of that data integrated all probably spring summer to sort of wrap it up. Doctor. Paul The project would have it meets two big goals. One is, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservation Commission is undertaking a natural resource inventory to really look at especially the parcels within the designated open space corridors to help prioritize and provide information that can guide planning for land acquisition easements, but also site reviews. Doctor. Paul A good example of that is we started doing some of that mapping work and that's what caught the vertical pools that we addressed in the cone road application. So it would allow us from a larger landscape perspective to collect data that we could integrate into our natural resource inventory
which we're driving for it, putting into the update of the planet conservation development when that comes around, but we could use that information pretty much immediately. Doctor. Paul But the second part of it, it would be very valuable of the inland wetlands Commission, because it would provide data where you could that would inform your site reviews of applications that would come in for developments that are proposed. Paul Around those vertical pools Farmer because there is a standard along with this data collection method. There's what's called the best development practices for vertical pools, which is a document that was developed to use that information
to provide guiding recommendations for reviewing applications associated with Doctor. Paul With vertical pools. So it works at both the site scale for review of applications as well as the larger scale for mapping. It also was valuable irregardless of whether we get permission from landowners. We get permission from landowners. That's great. And it's a great outreach. Tom Gregoire Activity in itself to both folks who are doing the surveys, but also folks who have them on their properties. It's a great public awareness piece. But suppose assuming we there's landowners who don't want to provide access. We still have the mapped potential pool. If an application comes up, then you could require as a commission. Okay, you have an application here around the potential vertical pool. We
would need a consultant to review to determine whether is a pool. Here's the information that would need to be collected. So it standardize the way you could approach some of those applications around the pools and collect information that could then be reviewed. Doctor. Steve In a standard way across the town. So that's the project in a nutshell. It, you know, if there's, you know, it requires a fair amount of organization, which is why I wanted to have a long lead time on it, especially given the times of coven which make Doctor. Paul Organization very difficult. So the mapping work and the work with the students in Yukon that would be up front can all be done very easily. Doctor. Through zoom and through sharing of data files. I'm already doing a fair amount of mapping for the open space corridors through
the Connecticut ecosystem, which is available through Doctor. Paul Through through through the Yukon program. So we so we would be able to easily do that part without having to meet without having to really do any training outside of work with the students that are involved in their and their professors. It would the part that would really become more of an engagement with the landowners and recruiting training wouldn't occur until the winter in the spring of the following year. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Actually, Tyson, I see Joe had sent me an email recently asking about the location of the town's official wetlands map, which if any of you know where it is, please let us know. So I think basically we need we need to start budgeting some money into developing one because John Valenti didn't have a copy of one, Josh didn't have one. So I don't think there is one. And legally we're supposed to have one. So I think this is a low hanging fruit in some ways, in terms of the stuff. We can do something more in-depth probably next year. We didn't put anything in the budget for this year. Any other questions for Hank? Thoughts, comments? Okay, Hank, any questions for us?
No, I think I think I guess I would like to sort of get a sense of approval, whether that's a motion. We I brought this up at the conservation Commission's meeting on December 29 and we reviewed it briefly and they approve moving forward with it and discuss that we were bringing it up at the in the wetland Commission meeting it tonight's meeting. So I think it's important that you know we have sort of Doctor. Paul Formal approvals for both that doesn't that doesn't, by the way, necessarily mean it will go forward. We're really are dependent on the Yukon students. There are some elements that we can do on our own from a mapping standpoint, but there's elements that Doctor. Paul I don't, we don't have the capacity of without a more advanced GIS system to do some of the calculations that are required that we would need them for.
Doctor. Well, I think it's a great idea and I'd be happy to make a motion to support the initiative for the Wetlands Commission too. I will second.
Alright, hearing now, I'll do roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott? Aye. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
And Vice Chairman Lowey. I as well as the motion carries 400. So you have the the official stamp of the approval of the wetlands agency. Thanks, everybody. We'll keep you posted as as things develop. Great.
Any other news from the commission that we should be aware of?
No, some point we will probably do some level of a presentation both planning and zoning into the wetlands once we've completely got our arms around some of the mapping for the open space corridors. But we're, it's a little, we need some more time to put that together.
All right. 11A, Bylaw Review Update. Both George and Joe took a crack at updating the bylaws. Unfortunately, don't have time to compile their two responses. I think Joe might be the easier to start with Mending because I believe he had mostly comments in the margins.
That's the one that says edited by JW. Yeah. Okay. Yes.
Alright. So, Joe, do you wanna walk us through your suggested edits?
Yeah. I did let's see. I kinda took a shall the word shall all out quite a bit. I wrote the in the comments here. A lot of people are moving away from that word because it's it can be kinda confusing because it it can mean, like, you have a duty to, or it may or it will or or must. It's usually intended for must, but I just thought it would be clearer if we use must or will instead of shall. So I did a lot of that. And there are a few other things that I put. I can keep going, I guess. Just a few minor wording changes. Oh, is this my does this include?
Yeah. It looks like yours are in there too. Okay.
So now I have to remember. So I think blue might be something was moved. Oh, okay. So, yeah. So I think a lot of there was a lot of things assigned to staff, in our last iteration of the bylaws that really weren't the duties of staff. So I tried to work with Eric in particular a little bit to see what can we actually expect staff to do versus what's gonna be the responsibility of the commissioners or the chairperson. So there was some reorganization that I had proposed based on that. And I think that's why this stuff is over here. So you can keep going, maybe I don't think there's anything significantly different in that text though. But I think in the board clerk, there may have been. And I haven't looked at my edits since I made them, which was quite some time ago. That's the best. Track changes is good, it's also not the easiest way to review documents. So I guess that's kind of the question that I wanted to get to tonight because I was hoping not to extend our meeting past 09:00 is what's the best way to take everyone's suggestions and put them into an updated version of the bylaws that we can consider?
Chairman Lalli. Go ahead. I think that you're right. Trying to view the revisions through track changes is often complex and confusing. It seems to me that the best way to proceed would be to incorporate the changes and allow members of the commission to review it without markup. We still have of course the original to look at for comparison. The relevant comments could be incorporated, for example, in a sidebar or in an attachment to the revised bylaws. For example, Agent Wagner's comments about systematic revision to remove the word shall and replace it with will or are or is, as the case may be. Your changes that were proposed as well as the ones that I proposed that could be incorporated. We just have one document to vote on under the regulations. We would have to wait until the next meeting in any event. So that would give us plenty of time to review the substantive changes and be able to go through it again without the confusion of colors and balloons and marginalia.
I agree. Would you be willing to take on the task of kind of combining the two documents that we have at the moment for the commission to look at in February?
I could do that, especially if we have an agreement tonight as to particularly the revisions that are not yet in there, the ones that I proposed as additions and changes, partly in response to earlier discussion of such issues as how to provide for remote participation in meetings in Right the now, of course, we're working under executive order, but we would hope that at some time in the not too distant future that executive order may expire. We can return to in person meetings. And at the same time, we want to have potential for remote participation. For example, when we went on the sidewalk on Pine Ridge DriveFlash Old Farms, we were accompanied by George Korea on cell phone. So he was on FaceTime. And so we were able to
include him in questioning participate in the walk. And I think that it would be good to be able to continue to do that for convenience of people who may not want to attend an in person meeting.
Great. So do you want us to go through your document then? Is that what you're asking? I would appreciate that. Yeah, I'd like to hear the
commission's comments on the proposed additions in particular. I think the change I just changed our bylaws order of business to reflect our actual practice, although the current bylaws do have the provision that unless otherwise determined by the chairperson, which pretty much gives you the license to order the agenda any way you see fit.
Yeah, and I think Eric had actually mentioned a while ago, I don't know if it was, it might've been when the Conservation Commission was trying to draft their bylaws, but he suggested we not put that in the bylaws. That way we weren't held to having to do things a certain way every time. His They might even want to delete that
article. That was his suggestion. But it's up to the commission whether or not. I will say what I've been doing lately is nothing close to what's here. I think we've kind of played with it to see what works for us and and the current format seems to be working kinda well.
Right. And that was the revision that I proposed to to map our our existing practice.
Sure. Minu, are we looking at George's version right now? Yes, it says order of business. Oh, That's first 100 audience see, okay. Okay, yep.
I would delete audience of citizens and substitute public comment. I meant to strike out not underline.
All right, and one of these, there's the public comment twice, is that correct?
In the past, we had it twice. I personally don't think we need it twice. I think we, Some commissions just by the nature of their towns, they don't allow public comment at all during their regular meetings because they don't need to and they just It doesn't make I sense to think we're pretty free with allowing people to comment on things as they come up. So I don't I think having one is more than sufficient, but if the commission feels strongly about having two, it doesn't hurt. I'm good with one. Okay.
Just to go one step further, George's suggestion regarding allowing people to participate online and stuff, I think we have to address whether votes can be taken that way, commissioners' votes, at some point. I don't know.
I would say, okay. Jim, I would say that participation, unless you want to, would include voting, participation as in discussion and voting on issues before the commission, but we could make that explicit. I don't think it was explicit in any of the previous.
To me, I think that's important that it be explicit. That's something that should be very clear, my opinion. If that's what the commission would like to do. Because I don't know whether anything else addresses it, that issue is addressed anywhere else. I mean, a lot of our bylaws are parroting statute. Statutes, I mean, statutes may change very well. I don't know. We could have another executive order. But right now, it's uncharted, I believe.
Okay, I can't answer it off the top of my head, but I will see if I can address it as I try to draft a completed version.
I will ask Karol and see what other folks are doing and get back to you.
Okay. Obviously, we're voting remotely and we could specify the potential for continuing to do so. I mean, a sentence to that effect in the appropriate portion of the bylaws probably relating to meetings wouldn't be amiss. It wouldn't bind us to anything. It's permissive rather than obligatory.
How about this, George, why don't you try and come up with some language and we'll take a look at it and see if everyone's satisfied with it?
I'll do that. Again, we'll try and get these out before the next, well, certainly well before the next regular meeting.
Yeah, I don't think we should add this to the special meeting. Others but feel we I think the February meeting, we could tackle it and hopefully our February meeting will be a little bit lighter from the special meeting. Thank you for taking that on George. Sure.
Yes. Thank you. Okay. So give us a final product that we can say, yay. Hopefully just yay too. Yeah.
Alright. The next meeting, we're back to Monday, the first Monday of the month. So it is Monday, February 1 at 7PM. And if there's no other items of business, I'll What's up?
Oh, go ahead. Can I ask a question? I was just wondering if because I was thinking about it afterward if engineer Hanfield's 344 Lake Road application. Like, if would you be would the commission be opposed to adding that to the special meeting agenda? I'm not sure if he wants to submit the modification, but I was gonna if you're open to having that on a special meeting. I was going to see if you would like to submit a modification. Thoughts?
I would prefer that we don't do that. And I will try to change my schedule to attend the meeting on the twenty sixth, but I don't know that I can. But I'm particularly interested in understanding the septic tank situation before we go forward with that particular proposal. George or Joe? I'm fine. I'm not putting it on until February. George?
I don't care. I mean, it doesn't matter to me.
Again, since we don't have an application in hand yet, I think it'd be premature to put it on the agenda. The other things that we put on the agenda, already have applications that we're reconsidering or looking at modifications. We've indicated to engineer Hanfield that we would require an application, but we don't have one. And I think that we'll have enough RR plate anyway, and that a five day delay shouldn't make a great difference. We're less than a week in terms of business days between our special meeting and our regular meeting.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. We wouldn't be able to take action anyway at the the meeting a week later, so it doesn't it doesn't really change anything. Yeah. You you just be able to receive it, I guess. Yeah. And and George's point is valid with the special meeting agenda. Once it's final, it stays final. So, it's probably better to keep that one off. Yeah. Okay. Makes sense. Okay. That that's a fair question, though. And I I sent you an email, Joe, with my my list of requests as follow-up to this meeting. So we're not restricted to Brandon. He's just worked well for the commission before. He's got more of an ecological background than some of the other engineers. But certainly, if he's not able to do the work in the time frame we need, he would be someone else you could ask. And then there's some others that I have written down in a file. Just don't want to use Andrew Bushnell because he's one of the
applicants, engineers, so we can't use him for this one. Otherwise, would say he would be a good backup too.
Megan, did we need to take any action on a budget?
Joe submitted one for us. Halder: It was due the seventh. Okay. So.
It was more or less Joe the same as last year, if I read your email. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I don't think we usually there's not too much in our budget anyway. Normally, I would have put it before you guys for a formal vote, but because I was not able to participate in December, it just needed to get in so the town could do what it needed to do. Just wanted to make sure we were covered. We were covered. Yep. Yep. Sorry to sorry to not give you guys a draft to look at though. Any other items? And are you available on the twenty sixth? Okay. Awesome. Alright, then I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Move to adjourn. Thank you. Second? Second. Who seconded? Jim? Yes.
Okay. So I have 09:12. The meeting is adjourned. Alright. So You're good. I can make it on the twenty sixth.
May press Megan, is that a backdrop or are you in the mountains somewhere?
No, it's a backdrop. We went hiking this summer in New Hampshire. It's the lights? Yeah, we were in Mount Garfield. Can you name any of those peaks?
My boss could he's been trying to hike all the you know what is it that over 4,000 feet or whatever. No Garfield was like the easy one and we had rented a lake house for a week and, it was relatively nearby. We took a day trip. I like showing people my background particularly in case I never know who's gonna like walk by with a diaper on or. Tell people it's your shelter home.
So all right. Well, you all. I appreciate it. And sorry, since in December, good night. Night, everybody. All right. Thank you.