Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
October 4, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Regular meeting of call this regular meeting of the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Corps Commission to Order. And
just checked out. My internet connection is unstable according to a pop up message that I keep getting, so I hope you'll excuse me if I disappear occasionally.
You're not disappearing, George. Just can't hear you. You've faded out several I am unmuted.
No, know you are. We can hear you, but there are periods where the bandwidth apparently doesn't make your voice come through well.
Oh, I see. Well, I'll try to speak directly to the microphone. And as they say, raise your head if you can't hear in the back of the room, wherever that might be on Zoom. Okay, so next item on the agenda would be changes in order to the agenda. As far as I'm aware, there is no need to do so. Desire on part of any of the commissioners to change the order or otherwise alter the agenda? Okay.
Seeing none, we'll proceed to approval of the minutes for our 09/14/2021 regular meeting. I will move to approve those minutes ask for a second. Second. From Judd Larson. I'll give you a moment to once again review and see if there are anything that's in your notes. I had one comment in Item 9E, part of the administrative report. It says concrete rubber, and I believe that that should probably be rubble. It's like those auto generated closed captions that you get on YouTube videos with interesting renderings. Other than that, I hadn't noticed anything. I had no comments on the minutes. Okay. Commissioner Monroe, did you have any?
I was looking at the same thing, that concrete rubber. And I was gonna ask
is concrete? You would like to know, right? There is such a thing. But on reviewing the application, I'm pretty sure it's rubble. Okay, so with no further corrections, can or well see it. Jody, did you have anything you noted? No. I don't have anything.
I think we might have lost George, so it might be a good idea to try if we all turn our cameras off for a minute to see if that helps with his bandwidth, if he's having a hard time with bandwidth. I think we just lost him in general. Stop video. Is that what you mean?
Yeah. I think we just lost him, so we can just turn our cameras back on. I can help. Here he is. You are on mute George.
There we go. Okay, I'm back. Sorry about that. Again, dodgy WiFi connection at my end of the house. So, item number five, public comment. I don't see any public except for those with business before the commission, and we'll be addressing that soon. So move to old business, the first item, our application 2115 for the Bunker Hill Road Bridge.
George, did approve did we vote to approve the minutes? If you held a vote, we may have missed you.
Oh, I thought I held a vote, yes. But backing up, if you want to reiterate that, I'd be happy to do that. Do it by roll call, I guess. Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. And Chairman Elliot? Aye. So again, motion carries unanimously. Okay, back to 2115 Bunker Hill Road Bridge. First of all, Agent Wagner, any updates on that since our, since we considered your previous meeting?
No, nothing new. I haven't heard anything from Eric or anything else about that other than, yeah, what we talked about a couple weeks ago.
Okay. I I know that there's been work going on down there. I've seen, equipment on the on the bridge. But
Yeah. As far as I know, they're trying to open open it up as a one lane bridge, But that's a that's all I've heard.
Okay, Commissioners, are there any questions or comments on the application? All set.
Jed also? Yep, all set. Okay. Then I'll move to approve application number IWWC20 for temporary repairs on the Bunker Hill Road Bridge. By roll call vote, Commissioner Monroe? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
And aye. Chairman Elliot also vote aye. So the motion carries unanimously. Next, we have application 20 for rebuilding an existing lake wall on 268 Lake Road. Again, Agent Wagner, have we got any updates on that? I did notice that the Alma letter of approval was now on file.
Yeah. I was gonna say we received that. I tried to talk to public works about options for the Culver. I didn't get a response. Okay. I reviewed I reviewed the Connecticut stormwater manual for retrofit options or any anything that that they would suggest. And it really looks like anything other than digging up that pipe, like the whole lawn and redesigning some kind of infiltration basin or, you know, s shaped infiltration channel would be an option, which doesn't seem like a great option in this situation, or some kind of like a deeper catch basin or a like a filtration device inside the storm drain, which would be something that could, you know, it's unrelated to the wall that could happen at a later time.
Yeah. It seems to me that it would be up. It would really be up to Alma to initiate any action on that because really the discharge is into the lake per se, and that's Alma's responsibility. So, it was just a passing thought anyhow in terms of the permit request itself. And then let me ask the applicants. I see Fazino is on the call here. If they were able to work with a contractor with respect to this, the drainage, discharge, from their, cellar or basement, That was the other item that we discussed as a potential, mitigation.
So one option other than running the pipe directly into the lake as it is now would be to discharge the pipe from the basement into a dry well. Or our plans do involve possibly replacing the house entirely in a year or two. Well, would take care of it. And that would take care of it. I'm really, if the pipe into the lake presents an issue for the board in any way, we're certainly open to the subject of, me throw a bag of cement in that hole, and we'll close for now. And in a year or two, we'll be back with a with a plan for a new home and moving on. Either way, I'm I'm okay with it. Any comments from?
Well, we spoke with the contractor was to have the pipe stop before it gets to the lake and go through the filter paper that the wall is going to be backed with. That's where it is now. So if you want us to get rid of the pipe altogether or whatever, it's fine. But that's the current state is what we're going to do.
Right. Well, the pipe's going to have to get taken up at least a bit during the process of rebuilding the wall. So maybe that would be an expedient short term solution. And given your intentions to redo the whole house, then a short term is indeed applicable here. So, I'll just quickly poll the members. Is there any further thought on that possibility, again, just discharging essentially into the backing of the wall, which would certainly slow down any discharge and perhaps filter any discharge as opposed to running it directly out to the lake.
Care Elliott, is that I think it would depend on how much water you're talking about. Is it just a small little bit of water?
It's just dry. Most of the time, if we get torrential rain, there might be some water coming out of it, but that's about it. Okay.
That seems like a reasonable thing to do then. Okay. Otherwise, if there's I would say if there's too much water coming out of that, that could actually be maybe not the best thing to do because then it could back up. Yeah. Like, mostly it's dry. Mostly dry and just a trickle? Yeah.
I don't know that it even runs at at a trickle ever, even at the happiest. This summer would be a good So
just so I am clear, the applicants, you were saying that you were going to run the pipe so that it went through the stone that you put before you get to the stone wall, that backfill stone that you were going to put in there, or it was going to continue to run into the lake? I wasn't clear on what option of the two that you were taking there.
So I believe what we discussed with the contractor was the pipe would discharge from the house underground to approximately where the filter paper begins, because then you had the filter paper, that foot of crushed stone, then the actual stone wall. Okay, no, I got it. That sounds good. Thank you.
In a sense that that backfill behind the wall per se would be acting like a dry well. Yes. Yes. Okay. Joe, do you have any comments on that?
No. I drafted a since it's not on the plan as that, I drafted a condition if you wanted it to terminate that drain pipe in that crushed stone section. Okay. Add to the permit if you'd like.
Okay. Good. Yeah. We would we would certainly want to add that to the permit conditions as a condition of approval, agree that that would be the best short term solution as opposed to discharging into the lake. Okay. Any further comments?
I did have one other question. Yeah, go ahead. And that is, I know at the last meeting, the applicants mentioned that they would like to use an excavator, or the contractor would like to use an excavator down there at the lake. And it wasn't clear to me as I looked at the house, how you would get the contractor's excavator down to the shoreline. It doesn't look like there's a good spot for you to get through there on either side of the house.
Yeah, it's a tough property, but I spoke with the neighbor Pat Kappenbin on I think he's 272 Lake Road. And he would allow our guy to drive from the road through. There's a gap in the bushes. The guy that does our lawns comes through there and does both our lawns. Okay, I gotcha. Yep. And I just, looking at your particular house there, I didn't see how How would you how would you get it? How would you get it in there? You have to fly it in. Yep. Barge. Right.
Okay. Okay, any, if there are no further comments, I will move to approve the permit application with the additional condition of the modification of the ciliary discharge pipe as discussed and as included in, Agent Wagner's comment. I'll second. Okay. Then by roll call, Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. And I also vote aye, so the motion carries unanimously. So, Agent Wagner will, of course, issue the permit. There's a two week cooling off period here, and anyhow, it looks like it's going to be a while before they're going to be able to lower the lake. With the amount of water that's coming in. So hopefully there will be no further ado, and you will be able to proceed with the project. And again, we'll look forward to seeing you in a few years when you're ready to find a new way to go to exist on a small property with a white friend. Okay, thank you. Okay, very
good. Well, then moving on, item number seven on the agenda, enforcement actions. It appears we have a problem at 93 Townsend Road, the application that we approved back in 2019 for a driveway crossing a wetlands. And yes, I had also noticed those storage containers. I think they were brought up relatively shortly after the permit was issued, and they seem to be staying, as well as what looks like a wood burning furnace. So agent Wagner.
Yeah. I just, I took a couple pictures. I visited the place. I had called the applicant or the the permittee. When did I call him? It was in June, maybe the end of June asking him about those containers, and he had told me that he would get them moved. They were they contained the stuff that he was gonna you know, all his items that he was gonna move into the house after they were finished building it, and he got a certificate of occupancy. So he said it would be about a month and they haven't been moved yet. So I wrote a letter on September 27. So last week, I mailed it out. Just telling him his options to either move the container or apply for a permit, which but, you know, moving the containers would be preferable. He told me he wants to move them. I don't know if he needs the equipment, like a crane or a truck or something to haul them out. But I figured I'd since I sent them the letter late last week, I'd give him a few days and then probably give him a call later this week before he before he had to take any formal action. So I just wanted to keep the commission updated on what was going on over there since they're pretty visible. Like you said, you noticed them.
Okay. Yeah. It's kind of a cool one to putting a shed in the upper room or something like that. But yeah, we should keep an eye on that and give them a reasonable amount of time to get them moved. But, it does appear that the place is now occupied, and so there's no reason for those to be on-site any longer. Okay. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to item number eight. As I indicated in the email that I sent to commissioners and to agent Wagner, I received the usual request from the town clerk to provide our meeting schedule for 2022. And I checked the calendar, based on our practice, that is the first Monday of the month, except on except when the first Monday is either a holiday or follows a holiday weekend. We come up with January 11, February 7, March 7, April 4, May 2, June 6, July 12, August 1, September 13, October 3, November 7, and December 5. I heard from Commissioner Larson, I think Agent Wagner, and Clerk Winter that that would be an acceptable schedule. MnROE, did you have any reservations I or missed. What was January's
meeting date? January would be on the eleventh. Eleventh. Our first Monday follows the holiday weekend. So it's the second Tuesday. Okay. No, that's great.
Okay, then if there are no objections, I'll simply move to approve by unanimous consent. So again, no objections. The motion passes. Okay. Agent report. It looks like you had one permit that was approved.
Yeah. It was 85 Bear Swamp Road. It was a 14 by 30 prefabricated shed on a gravel base. It's within the 100 foot upland review area of a little brook and a little pond, but it's in the it was in a clear, you know, on a on a grass lawn, relatively flat area. Well, the permit is on posted online. There's kind of a a basic plan, but there is no clearing involved in in placing the shed or anything. It's just it's just going on the guy's lawn. I also have something I received regarding I WWC 20Dash36, the 26 Old Farms Road permit that was approved earlier this year for the wetlands crossing. They had sent me a plan, Abby's sharing it on the screen, for a new new culvert plan. So apparently, the
the price of the box culvert that was in the plan has increased substantially since, this permit was approved. So they decided to, go with a open box, poured in place culvert. So it's the same dimensions, but there won't be a bottom. So you just have would have to excavate for the footing, and then they put forms up, and then pour the concrete top and sides in place. And there will be Like I said, there'll be no bottom, so the stream will will be less disturbed from that. It'll maintain the same dimensions. Right. Wanted were,
right? They were going to backfill the base of the culvert anyhow, right? They're yeah, applying culvert. So yeah.
Structurally it'll do. Do the same thing. I mean, they'll be in a string bed,
Yeah. So it'll be instead of having to excavate the entire thing, you know, stream channel to put the culvert in and then re rebuild the stream channel inside the concrete culvert. They'll they'll just be able to do the footings alongside of it, which is probably which is a better from a wetlands perspective. It's a better option anyway. Having an open bottom culvert is always the recommended practice as opposed to a box culvert. But they wanted me to to share that with the commission, and they said they'd be willing to to talk, speak about it if need be. And then the zoning agent said he would he's going to send that to the town engineer for a review just to make sure structurally it's sound. But
Mhmm.
Yeah. I think pending that determination, we probably should consider this as a it is a permanent modification, and we should bring it up at the next opportunity. We could probably put it on the agenda for our November meeting.
Yeah, I was thinking it was pretty, it was pretty minor modification being that the the dimension. I mean, it's just like a construction method instead of, you know, they're not changing the the size of the culvert or anything. All those calculations and everything would be the same.
Right. Yeah. I think it's a minor change as well. But again, just to make sure we have all of our T's dotted and our I's crossed, we should probably again review this in some detail, and especially again making sure that it's a structurally sound solution. And again, I certainly understand the intent, and I don't have any objection to it. But as I said, I think that just as a matter of form, we should at least consider it at a meeting where we can have it on the agenda.
What would you what would you suggest, a permit modification, like an application for a permit modification?
Off the top of my head, I think I I would I'd wanna review just how we wanna approach it. But as I said, we certainly can't approve it at this point. And because it's directly in a wetlands, this doesn't seem like something that you could approve, you know, on your own recognizance. So as I said, I think we just better make sure that we take a look at a subsequent meeting.
Well, we need to I mean, we need to have a, like, a procedure for that. I mean
Right. I've got a, you know, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head what that would be, so I'd like a little space to get back to you on that question. But it seems to me it would be something of a permit modification so that, again, as I said, I just want to make sure we have a chance to consider it as an item on our agenda rather than simply responding to it as a communication.
Yeah. I'll just have to we'll we'll have to come up with, what what it would be on the agenda Yeah. Yeah. Between between here and the next so I can get the you know, if you're if you require application, I'll have to get the applicant enough notice to put something together. Right. So Jud, did you have a comment there?
Yes. And I guess I remember as we were going through the approval process for that filling of the wetlands, you know, discussions were all about one size of a culvert. And then we found out that that wasn't the right size. They were putting a smaller one in. And we talked about having a bigger span, which was cost prohibitive. It's disappointing to me to hear at this point that there was a cheaper alternative that we wouldn't have considered, that we didn't consider, and it might have allowed us to have the greater span that we were looking in from the start, as opposed to putting the two different culverts through there. So, there's probably, I agree that what they're looking to do now is probably better than what we ultimately approved. It's just very disappointing that when we were trying to drive so hard on what's preventing us from doing it right, which was building the bigger spans, we got all this stuff about the cost being prohibitive. And here we find out there's a cheaper option that we never considered as an alternative. That's just very disappointing to me.
From my conversation with the applicant, they're saying that the cost of the prefabricated cover went up substantially between now and then. I I I'm not sure. But so so this is still more like, a more expensive option than anything that was considered. Because I remember them considering the style during the approval process, and they're talking about how expensive it it was compared to the other one. I forget the exact number, but so I think everything's everything's at a higher cost now. It just shifted upwards. So that's it made this more more reasonable. And, you know, I'm not sure. I didn't see any numbers, but that's what the applicant said. But I can have I can have them come in and speak about it in the next meeting if you'd like.
Yeah. I I the engineers certainly didn't, make us aware of any option other than a prefabricated box culvert, and I wasn't aware that the same thing could be achieved on-site essentially with constructed forms. So, I think it's worth discussion, and I think that the point about, you know, the cost is relevant. But again, as Agent Wagner pointed out, it may still be more expensive, even with the less expensive option, than the applicants anticipated. And again, the engineers did assure us that the capacity of the culverts was more than adequate for anticipated stream flows even under high water conditions. So I don't think that the issue of a larger culvert is necessarily relevant. But again, I think we should hear from the applicants, from the permittees, about this modification and what's driving, that request. So, Joe, I can be in contact with you as soon as I've had a chance to, review the regs and and see what we need the most appropriate way of dealing with this kind of modification. Okay. Okay? So anything else, from the agent report?
No. That was it. Okay. Other business. Does anyone have comments, queries?
I have one. Go ahead. Agent Wagner. During that summer storm, I live on Rose Lane in town here. We ended up with a sinkhole at the end of Rose Lane and I don't know if the town's aware of it or not.
I'm not sure. I can can forward the message. Send it over to public works and the town administrator for you.
Yeah. I I thought he was gonna be on tonight. That's why I I kinda waited. Not here. So Yeah. I appreciate it because I don't you know, it's it's not too bad right now, but it's right on the very edge of the paved. So if it expands at all, it could just undermine that whole cul de sac. Okay. I'll let him know.
Let's see now. I had one comment. We talked last meeting about revising regulations, and I did submit our regulations and proposed revisions to the email box at DEEP, and predictably I haven't received any response to that. We'll hold on that then until, you know, if I don't hear from them soon, I will send a second inquiry or see if there's some way to contact an actual person regarding those revisions. One thing that did occur to me was looking at the, you know, the new electronic permit application. Since we're doing everything electronically now, I was wondering about our requirement for eight copies. Now, it says in the regulations, and it says on the website that applications have to be accompanied by eight copies, and that copying fees would be included if there were more required. And since electronic forms are indefinitely replicable at virtually no cost, we might want to amend that regulation, at least as long as we're going to be working with electronic submissions. I don't see any prospect of going back to paper applications in the near future.
Yeah. We haven't haven't gone live with the virtual application yet. Right. I've been kinda holding off till we get a new building admin assistant before we, you know, get them up to speed and then because they're still trying to get used to the the doing the building permits online. So I figured we because we don't get that many wetlands applications. Well, yeah. Yeah. We could handle it by hand. And then as for the eight applications, I haven't been requiring that for Okay. Okay.
Most of them is kind of a waste. They just fill up the file cabinet and no one needs them. So, I mean, they're they're we can make copies if if necessary. Right.
Okay, I did again. That was just a passing thought, and I did. I realized that we weren't really distributing paper copies anymore anyhow, so seemed like a moot point. All right, I don't believe there's any other business. Okay, then our next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 1, again at 7PM on Zoom. And with that, I will move to adjourn, and seeing no objection, declare it by unanimous consent. So, I like these short and sweet meetings, but of course we can look forward to more business in the future. So, with that, I think we can all click the little red leave button on the lower right hand corner of our screen and say good night, and see you next week. Good night, everyone. Doctor. Good night.