Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
February 1, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
All right, so it is 07:00 on Monday, 02/01/2021. I'm Megan Lally and I'll call the Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission regular meeting to order. The first or the second item on the agenda is roll call and seating of alternates. See vice chairman George Elliott is president, commissioner Jed Larson, commissioner Jim Halsey, what's missing? I do not see Commissioner Ed Smith. I'm going go ahead and seat alternate Commissioner William Monroe for Ed. Did I miss anyone? Apologies. Likely going to be a screaming toddler interrupting a second. All right, so with that, we'll move on to the third item on the agenda, which is additions or changes in the order to the agenda. And I'll open the floor to the Commission. Well, hearing none, I actually had a few. I would like to make a motion to make the following changes and additions to the agenda. So the first would be that we table item for a which is the approval of the January special meeting minutes to our next meeting. These weren't posted within twenty four hours of the meeting. So the commissioners didn't have a chance to review. The other addition would be making a new section six, which would be new business and under that an item A to add
permit IWWC twenty-twenty seven ms, which is a permit modification request for 344 Lake Road residential addition within the Andover Lake Upland review area. And then the last piece to my motion would be adding what will now be section 10, other business, a new item B, training opportunities. Could you repeat the last?
The last part? Sure. So if we add six, a new six new business, then other business will become section 10 or item 10 and adding a sub item B under that for training opportunities. Good, thank you. I'll second the motion.
Any discussion? Okay, I'm hearing none with the roll call vote. Vice chair. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. Commissioner Halsey. You're muted. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Also muted, Judd. Aye.
Thank you. And Chairman La la vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. That means we are going to postpone discussion of item 4A, the approval of the January 26 minutes until our next meeting to give the commissioners a chance to review them. That brings us to items five on the agenda, which is public comments. I believe everyone on the call is associated with an application, but does anyone wish to provide public comment? Anybody a comment about a particular application
that you have? Sure, so Scott Person, are you commenting as a
selectman citizen? No, I'm commenting as a citizen and a taxpayer. Sure, go ahead. Okay,
so anyways I'm making comments about 20 dash thirty thirty six. You know, section 22A dash 36 inland wetlands water courts regulations from the state of Connecticut state that you can't divert or obstruct water flow erection of structures or other uses all filling of wetlands I mean the you guys know the regulations, those things material would be, you know, anything organic or inorganic, any kind of thing that you put in Water courses are stated, know, intermittent or otherwise. There's, you know, that particular spot where you want to put that, where you want to fill that wetlands, that confluence of two intermittent streams, that's the Riparamian Passage that's 70 feet wide, two fifty feet from the Hop River. Downstream there's another intermittent stream
that comes off the hill that used to have brook trout in it. That whole thing, you know, I can't be sure, but I'd have to look on the map. I would say it could be in a floodplain. For you guys to put 2,400 square feet of bill in that area, and not even talking about the upland review that's associated with that area, I was aghast when I saw this application and I saw that you were gonna fill that fill that with somebody's driveway. The regulation and another thing that kind of I couldn't understand was that here we have a filling with here and then Mark Branch had given you guys some advice about fill during a logging operation. You know, during the logging operation or fill for driveway is the same regulation. It does, it doesn't matter where you guys are using it with a driveway or if you're using it during your logging operation, it's the same fill.
It's described here in the regulation that the state of Connecticut has written out for everyone to follow. So, if, I don't understand if that part of it, for one thing, if you can't fill during a logging operation, how can you permanently fill and that, and the logging operation would have been a temporary thing and now this is a permanent filling of wetlands, 70 feet of wetlands. So, you guys know all these regulations. I just want to hear what happens now.
Thank you. So just so you're aware, I have recused myself from this application for multiple reasons, but I'm going to respond to the kind of the regulation aspects of your comment. And then I think the substance related to the application can be addressed during that agenda item. Regarding the interpretation of the regulations, I'm comfortable speaking on behalf of the commission to say that we absolutely agree with you. It's the same interpretation, whether the activity is forestry, driveway construction or anything in between. And that means that a permit would be required to do those activities. It doesn't mean a permit is gonna be granted. So just to clarify that piece, and then regarding the extent of the filling proposed, I'll leave it to the commission to address your comments during six B or what's now seven B, excuse me, of the agenda.
Mark Branch already gave you advice on the filling. I thought that that would be the advice that you would be using going forward.
It is. So his advice is that placement of any material in a wetlands, you know, be it timber for crossings or gravel and culverts for driveways is felt should be regulated. It doesn't mean it should be allowed to be permitted, but it means it falls based on his legal guidance to us that it falls under the jurisdiction of the commissioner regulator. And it's a permanent fill also?
Yes. Through a riparian habitat which you know I'm glad that Hank Hank said that and he went and looked at it and said it I mean it's quite obvious what it is,
you know. The Commission here's your concern, the permit hasn't been granted so that's why you're giving comment And because I'm not going to talk further about the application, I'll wait until Vice Chairman Elliott takes over during 7D of the agenda to circle back to your comments. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Any additional public comment?
Megan. Hi, this is Hank. Go ahead. Can I just provide a brief update to the commission regarding the vernal pool mapping joint project with the Conservation Commission that we discussed at the I believe it was the January 12 meeting of the of the wetland Commission?
If it's okay with you, I'd like to hold that until other business at the end. Sure. Okay. So make a motion to add a new item. Let's make it 10A. So it'll become the new 10A Conservation Commission update on Vernal Pool mapping project. So moved. Thank you. Alright. So seconded by commissioner Halsey. And any discussion? Alright. So hearing no objections, we'll see the motion carries. All right, so back to any additional public comment. Okay, so that will bring us to what's now item six new business on the agenda. The commissioner received an application that I don't think we've had a chance to post online. Agent Wagner, are you on the call? Is that you are? Where'd you go?
Yeah, I'm Oh, there you are. Okay. I think it was, I'm pretty sure it was posted this afternoon.
Oh, okay. Did get put up in there. Cindy, are you able to pull those materials up? So this is 20, wait, which one? This is 20Dash37, right? This should be the 344 Lake Road 1, right?
And you can you pull up those materials? Yep. Thank you. Don't believe the commission has had a chance to review this application, but if agent Wagner, if you can, I know we've had Mr? Hanfield before us previously to discuss it. So we have a general idea of what's being requested. Agent Wagner, if you can go through what was submitted and give the highlights for the commission.
Okay. The application was submitted on Thursday, January 28. It was submitted shortly after the agenda was posted, which why it needed to be added. The fee was paid for for permit modification. Signed application was submitted. Butters list was submitted, and copies of the modified plan were submitted. And the materials are posted on the town website this afternoon. You also emailed them to the commission for review. The plan is the proposed construction of a 24 foot wide by 36 foot deep addition to the east side of the house, which is smaller than the one originally approved by the commission in 2018. The work will consist of installation of access drive, erosion controls, removal of concrete stoop on the east side of the house, excavation and installation of a concrete foundation, construction and grading and finishing of the landscape. I'll open the floor to the commission.
It looks like they have a telephone pole right in their front yard. Is that correct?
Actually, I open, Mr. Hanfield, believe you're still on the call, I'm having trouble seeing everyone now that we're in. I am on. Okay, thanks. Is there anything you want to add to what agent Wagner said?
I apologize. My my screen went dead there for a sec, but I think Mr. Wagner covered it. There's no change in the plan from what we presented to you the last two months. The addition is the same. What we did is add in information from the original approval. So since that last meeting and between the time we submitted the conditions of the original approval were found on the land records. So what I did is included them in the bottom left hand corner of the plan. So all of the conditions of that original permit that apply to this permit are shown on the plan for you to consider. There they are on the bottom left corner. In summary, all of the conditions are incorporated except for generally two. One of the conditions related to the septic system. That septic system was installed prior to the sale.
And I went back and checked all the records of that septic system. It was in compliance, in full compliance with the Department of Public Health Technical Standards and Health Code. It was approved by the Eastern Highlands Health District and an As Built was submitted. The information on this plan that you see is that As Built of the three bedroom system that was installed and again that was a code compliant system and one of your conditions of the approval or the original approval was installation of a conditional or a code compliant system. That was done. The other condition that's not included is information related to removing the drainage pipe that goes from Lake Road and discharges into the lake. It traverses through the property.
We submitted additional information in your supplement that describes why that's not being done for one. The previous owner, when they were going to build this one out for quotes to do the site work and the costs for removing that pipe were exorbitant and not feasible or prudent to allow for any addition. So they didn't follow through with that plan, sold the house. As part of the sale, had to put a code compliant septic system in. And the system as shown is there because of that pipe to provide adequate separating distance to that pipe. So that's the history on the septic system and the drainage pipe. So
those are the new pieces and information that were submitted to you. The addition is the same and in general the site work is all the same. Do the commissioners have any questions? Mr. Hanfield.
This is Jed and I was curious. So when we say it's a code compliant septic system, that means that the leach fields at least 18 inches above the max high water table level?
That's correct. It's a complete code compliant system. So not only does it provide separating distances to ledge and high seasonally high groundwater, it also provides separating distances to the pipe that goes to the site of 25 feet. And it provides adequate minimum leaching system spread. So it's a fully compliant system. Thank you. Additional questions?
I guess I asked about that telephone pole. That just seems a little odd where it is. That's got to be removed. Is that what I see? It will be removed. Yeah. Other questions? Commissioner Halsey, Vice Chairman Elliott?
I did see on review that there was a note about a 100 here. A 100 I'm sorry, the 100 foot buffer elsewhere in the application. It notes the fact that the entire parcel is within the 200 foot regulated area. Just it's just a note on the plan somewhere. Doesn't need a lot. Sorry, did you say the plan says 100 feet? Somewhere I believe so, yes. Okay, there
might be duplicate labels but we do label the 200 foot at the top right of the page there's a dimension line between the lake and a dash dot line goes through the Hell Of Lake Road in the top right. It was very specific in the application as 200. Okay.
Megan, I did have one, two additional questions. I know where I thought the requirement was for the leach field to be 75 feet from the well. And I see it's inside that circle. And I didn't know if that was a problem or not. And I also didn't see the reserve wheat field area listed on the drawing. And I think the write up says it's in encompassed. I just don't know where that's at.
I can answer both those questions. Go ahead. So the first is a separating distance to the well. An exception was issued by the Department of Public Health to the 75 foot well radius. That exception was I believe 53 feet, which was an increase from the previous leaching field and is quite common for repairs. So again, it was an improvement from the original septic system and an exception was issued by the Department of Public Health for where it's shown. As for reserves, they're not required for repairs. So we're not required to show them. However, when we go through the building permit process, we will have to have a B100A compliance plan that shows a co complying area in addition to what we show. The original plan was a B100A and we will provide that to the health department, but it does not get built. It just shows that you can provide another system on the site.
And by your approval last time that shows the area where we can build septic system regardless of feasible or prudent alternatives. So we do have adequate space for reserve. It's showing on the original approved plan and we will go through the B100A process through the building permit as required. Thank you. Additional questions or comments from the commission.
I have a question, Megan. Go ahead. This is a modification to an existing application, correct? An existing permit, yes.
Existing permit, yes, sorry. So is there any reason we we act on this this evening or not?
I don't know the answer to that question. I think we probably should still wait the two weeks just to be safe, not knowing the answer, but that's something I will look into so that if this comes up again, we have a clearer understanding. So what I was going to say, I just wanna write a note so I don't forget to follow-up on that modification, is that I would entertain a motion from the commission. Typically, that we discuss upon receipt of an application are site visit, handing it over to the agent for review, or postponing further discussion until the next meeting. Open any of those motions or another one if I missed something.
I move to hold the last, the third option you put out there to hold comments till the next meeting. Is there a The comments to the next regular scheduled meeting. Judge seconds. Any discussion? Could you repeat the motion?
I believe the motion is to postpone further discussion on the application until the regularly scheduled March meeting of the commission. Thank you.
Would the commission like agent Wagner do a site visit with Mr. Hanfield prior to the March meeting?
Does agent Wagner think that would be appropriate? I mean, does she?
I don't not sure what additional information I could gather. Could take pictures. And provide those. But I mean, the plan is pretty comprehensive. The addition, I mean, it's it's pretty similar to what was previously approved. So I mean, I'm sure if it's if the commission would like to see some pictures or something, then I can go there.
And just be fair about suggesting I think it's necessary. I just don't want to meet in March and then decide we want you to do it. Bringing it up now.
I have a question of the engineer through the chair, if I may. Do have to know the percentage of impermeable surfaces there? I do. It's
lot coverage. I believe it's not covered yet. Only table 6.6%. Okay. Which is far below the 12% max. Right. Got it. Thank you.
There's a motion to postpone discussion until the March meeting. Any additional comments or discussion? Okay. I'll do roll call vote. Vice chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. Hallisey. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. And Chairman La la, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. Mr. Hanfield, is there anything you need of the commission prior to the March meeting?
No, just if Mr. Wagner or anybody has comments that we can incorporate in advance of that meeting, it'd be appreciated.
Sure. So any additional comments will follow-up through agent Wagner with you. Otherwise, we'll see you at the March meeting. Great, thank you so much. You're welcome. Do you want me to stay on for the next applications? I know my letters are included.
That's a good comment. I think it would be helpful to have your feedback on what is now 7B. Happy to stay on. I'll put it on mute until I hear the applications come up. Okay, why don't we do that? Because I don't wanna meet the other applicants. I have a feeling discussion on the first one's gonna be shorter than the second. Yep, no problem. Okay, great. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, so that brings us to what's now seven on the agenda, old business under permit applications. The first one item A is IWWC twenty-thirty submitted by Patricia Clayman for twenty five Cider Mill Road. And I'll turn it over to agent Wagner to describe any new materials or, relevant information that's been submitted since the last regular meeting.
Okay. I talked with the applicants and assisted them with preparation of a revised permit application. That application incorporates all the changes discussed and recommended at previous meeting. Curtain and curtain drain installation remains, similar to the previous version of the application. The only thing was an addition of gravel place at the drain outlet for erosion control. The bridge that was a permanent bridge has been changed to a temporary crossing. That's gonna use proposed to use six by six posts placed parallel and stream to stream flow. Posts will be installed during a period of low flow. Note the wetlands agent have to be notified prior and after placement of the posts in the stream. Posts will be secured in place with a cable to prevent
stream flow blockage and movement will be removed after completion of the project. The revised application that was posted on the account website. It's the one on the bottom, I think, is application revised January 26. Description of the plan along with the revised map with contour lines, which is requested by the commission has been submitted and is on the town website for you.
So I think if I recall correctly at our last meeting, most of the questions were related to the proposed temporary crossing, but why don't we start with the proposed curtain drain? Do the commissioners have any questions of the applicant regarding that aspect of the project? I don't.
Not hearing any. So Agent Wagner, are you satisfied with that aspect of the application? Yeah.
So regarding the temporary crossing, it sounds like the update was that, I thought it was temporary to begin with, but currently proposed to be temporary. There's multiple questions regarding the design of the crossing and Mr. Persson brought up at our previous regular meeting, you know, the importance of the approach and the exit to the crossing as well as the crossing itself. Was any additional detail provided regarding those aspects?
There was, where is it on there? Oh, close. Okay. You have the stream bank edge and then a protective sheeting. I got four by eight sheets of plywood will be used to protect the upland approaches to the stream, the stream crossing and then any ruts or divots will be filled and covered with mulch and or brush to prevent erosion and stabilize the area after completion of the project. Those are the erosion control and preventive measures that were added to the plan.
And is this depiction still what's being proposed for the stream crossing?
Yeah, it's the basic that was included with the other, one of the other revisions. That's just the basic drawing. It doesn't show the cable that would secure the, you know, run through eyeballs at the end of the post, which was described in the plan above. But other than that, it's basically how the post would sit in a stream and obviously it would have to be low for those to work.
And where is that material proposed to be placed after the initial use? That's not on the plan, don't think.
Are the applicants able to address that question? So if it's a temporary crossing under the design proposed, there's multiple six by six posts with, cables. Where would that be placed after use? Is it a one time use and then it would remove be removed off the site or is this something that you would maintain for future use? Think maybe you might need to. I believe Apple chips is the applicant but they're on mute. They should be able to unmute themselves. Can
you hear us now? We can. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. The material would all be removed from the location and stored if for future use, if applicable. So nothing would be remaining out of sight after the crossing is complete. Does the commission have any questions or comments?
I just had a question. Mean, should this be approved? I mean, it's temporary and obviously it could be used again. Would that be another permit?
Yeah. I don't know. That would I guess that's up to you guys.
I would not. For the commission I just. Oh sorry. Oh oh oh. I'm sorry My fault.
So the question might be answered by the applicant. So are you requesting a permit that would allow for one time placement of the material for crossing for a particular, the current train project or are you requesting a permit to be able to do this whenever you want essentially in the future?
The permit is for this one time use if there's a future need
most likely it'll require a permit. We're not sure though like if if for some reason we needed to cross think unfortunately you froze on my end at least. Right.
Okay, well, I think we lost the applicants temporarily. Hopefully they can rejoin us. Does the commission have any additional comments they wish to discuss among themselves in the meantime? Chairman Lalit? Go ahead.
I think we should regard this as a one use permit, because it's tied to the specific need to move equipment for the curtain drain installation. So it's being driven by that rather than a general use. And if they have further need, as the applicants pointed out, they would likely have a situation where they would be doing some activity in the Upland Review area that would require a permit. So a stream crossing could be incorporated in whatever activity they might be looking to do. Any additional comments from the Commission?
Chairman Lowell, I'd also consider that what George was saying about the one time use is consistent with what we've done with the various logging applications.
I agree. Looks like the applicants were able to rejoin if the commission has any additional questions of them. Okay, if there's no further questions of the applicant or of agent Wagner, it seems we might be ready to entertain a motion on the application.
Chairman Maloney, I will move to approve application 2030 for the curtain drain and temporary crossing Permit application, well, the permit duration should be two years should be sufficient.
Is the applicant believe they would accomplish this project within two years? Yes. Okay. Is there a second for the motion? Second.
Okay. So motions made by Vice Chairman Elliott and seconded by Commissioner Hallisey. Any discussion on the motion?
Yeah, I think it's incumbent on the commission to disrupt, put some conditions in there that would keep that timeframe. We're allowing them two years, but it has to be done in low flow, which is a little inconsistent. We could narrow that timeframe for the actual crossing.
And I'll offer the state when it's issuing permits, it usually limits it to the summer low flow period for any in stream activity.
And that is specified in the modified application. It's explicitly stated that it will be done during a period of low flow. So it's not a condition that we need to add.
Well, I think it's worth including in the permit because, as stated, it says crossing will only be installed during period of low stream flow and will be removed after completion of proposed curtain drain. So in theory, though, I don't think this is their intention. They could install it during low stream flow and then potentially leave it there for two years if we didn't specify that that was otherwise not approved. Are you making a motion to amend the initial motion to include restrictions for activity to the the low flow summer period? Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Second.
Motion made by commissioner fallacy seconded by commissioner Monroe. Discussion related to the motion to amend the original motion. Alright, hearing no objections that motion carries so the revised motion is that a permit would be issued for a two year duration with standard permit conditions and the additional commission or condition that activity would be restricted to the summer low flow period for the, the use of the the temporary crossing. Any additional discussion? Okay, hearing none will do roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
And chairman LaLee, I vote aye as well. So the permit is issued. The applicant should follow-up with agent Wagner to receive a copy of the permit. Typically, ask, that you wait two weeks before the permit will be issued to you anyway. That just gives the public a chance if they wish to appeal to the court. And if you have any questions of us, now's the time to ask. Otherwise, you can follow-up with agent Wagner.
Thanks. We'll follow-up with agent Wagner, and we appreciate all your concerns. Thank you.
You're welcome. Good luck. Yay. So that brings us to what's currently item seven B under old business, which is application IWWC 20 dash 36, submitted by Eric Lateska and George Korea for twenty six Old Farms Road. I'm going to turn the meeting over to Vice Chairman Elliott for this agenda item. I would remind the commission that there were public comments submitted earlier in the meeting related to this application that should be addressed and potentially, I think it would be beneficial to the decision for the commission to make a clear decision as to whether or not a significant activity is proposed in association with this application. But with that, I'll hand it over to Vice Chairman Elliott to do as you wish. And I'm gonna turn my video off because I have a tendency to not and stuff and do things like that. Just so nobody can see me. I'm here, but you won't come to see me. Okay.
See you later. Okay, so as Chairman Lally said, she's recused herself. We brought up this application at our special meeting. And I would like to briefly turn this over to Agent Wagner if there's any updates since our discussion then and if any new materials have been added to the dossier.
I haven't received any new materials. I'll just review the the letter from engineer Hanfield. I had a hydrologic report. Yeah. He recommended a hydrologic report with a watershed mapping. He recommended considering the army corps of engineered Connecticut General permit guidelines, which I tried to look into a little bit. And I tried to contact the Army Corps regional office for some guidance, but I didn't receive a broad response from them. And then his recommendations had a construction sequence on there. But yeah, no, no new material since the special meeting.
Yeah, Joe. So we're currently gathering up as much information as we can. We have a hydraulic report. We have revised a drawing that shows the utilities going up to Old Farms Road that Jim wanted. We also did reach out to the army corps engineers but we have not heard back yet. We were waiting to get a response to them before we submitted all of our three concerns that the commission had.
Thank you. If I could be permitted to add a little observation here, I recall that when the commission did a site visit on was it Hutchinson Road, where the town was talking about repairing culverts that our town administrator, Eric Anderson, mentioned that the Army Corps regulations might come into play for the small stream that Mr. Persona alluded to, which evidently, occasionally has fish in it. And that would complicate matters. But I don't think that that would necessarily apply in a situation where we're really only looking at an intermittent water flow, an intermittent water course that floodplains before it gets very far from the proposed crossing.
Orger, are you going to let me talk about this at all? I thought you already made your comments,
Scott. It was on this that and I'm responding to those comments. The fact is that we are considering a permit application, which is exactly what we're supposed to do. And you did state that you felt that it was a high impact. And I believe that the commission has already ruled that it is, in fact, a significant activity. Good. Thank you, George.
I think when we originally received the proposal. Now, remaining questions regarding the streamflow, the hydraulics, and so forth, I think might be best addressed by engineer Hanfel, who I think mentioned that that information was available. And Mr. Korea also mentioned it was available.
Do do you want me to go through some of my comments? Yeah. Walk If walk us through that again. Sure. Yeah, so the first comment, it's pretty straightforward. I did speak with the applicant's engineer briefly. And he said they did do the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. They just didn't submit it with the application. So I do think for this size of a crossing and the fact that it directly abuts an upstream downstream property. The hydraulics are important to see if there's any change on either of those abutting properties or to the regulated areas upstream or downstream. So I do think that's important. And watershed mapping should kind of flush out how big the watershed is, where the water is coming from, what street. There's a little bit of discrepancy in public mapping as to what watershed is included in this crossing. And there appears to be maybe an upstream and downstream tributary as well. So I just want to flush out those details with that analysis.
The second with regards to Army Corps of Engineering, I don't know that Army Corps applies here either. It's not super clear but intermittent crossings can be regulated by the Army Corps. And certain things within that watercourse need to be identified to know if army corps would regulate it. So my recommendation really is to incorporate their standards for culvert crossings that would allow this application if approved to go through the self verification process with Army Corps which means you check all the boxes off, there's no deviations from their standards and you can do a self verification report to them. Really if the applicant chooses to incorporate everything that Army Corps recommends in their general permit for self verification, if required that process can be a lot easier. So A, B, C, D and E are right off of their general permit which is listed for the state of Connecticut. It's pretty straightforward but the important things here are that the culverts pipes themselves are oversized and depressed below the natural channel, 25% minimum. So I believe the plan shows three foot pipes that are at grade. In this case, they might want to consider a four foot pipe that's buried one foot which would be 25% And that'll have a natural bottom. And again, that would not just promote good hydraulics, but also promote the smaller wildlife creatures crawling through it rather than up and over an embankment or retaining wall.
C is pretty cut and dry, natural substrate. D, I don't know that there's fish passage at this point. I have been to this site full disclosure. I looked at it with a potential buyer probably two or three years ago and didn't think it was for that potential buyer. But at that time there was water flowing, was minimal. And the only other time I've seen a picture of it was within Mr. Logan's report and it looked like it was flooded. So the two times I've seen this crossing, it did have water. I did not notice any fish, but if there are fish, again if you meet the army corps standard by burying the invert, it will pass the fish without impact. The last one here, So Mr. Logan's report states that it passes the one hundred year storm. I don't dispute that. I haven't seen the calculation showing that. But what the Army Corps wants is to pass the fifty year storm without pressure flow. So they want basically a run of the river through for the fifty year storm and below through those culverts
without the top cord being inundated by water, which creates a pressure condition and increases velocity. So if they check all those boxes in accordance with Army Corps, it's a better culvert crossing. It meets their standards and if approved by your commission, it would be a more seamless process moving forward. Number three is the same Army Corps standard. This one has more to do with light that gets through the culverts. Again, if a small creature can see light at the end of the tunnel, they're more apt to crawl through it. And this openness ratio is what Army Corps uses to check and see if there is enough light in those culverts for the small creatures. So if they can meet that openness ratio, I think it's an improvement not just for the wetlands but also for the animals and creatures that use the wetlands. And the last one really is to do with how this culvert will be built. So the pictures I saw from Mr. Logan, it was flooded. The most damage you can do to the wetlands or upstream or downstream properties is during construction when you restrict that channel
before the pipes are in and stabilize. So I think I do think a detailed construction sequence plan is warranted to show how they would build it without encroaching on someone else's property or resulting in a temporary unpermitted disturbance of the wetlands up or downstream.
Thanks for reviewing that. Mr. Korea, have you and your engineer had time? Obviously, we received this not more than a week ago. So I don't know if you and your engineer have had an opportunity to consider and work on these recommendations or respond to them.
Yes, we have considered. And so right now, George Logan, he has a contact at the Army Corps of Engineers and he's attempting to reach out to this person to see if the that areas in fact within their regulation or not. I don't necessarily have a problem with doing the recommendations of Brandon. If that would make things smoother or would make things easier or the decision easier. I don't necessarily have a problem with doing what he's asking.
Some discussion we've had with our engineer up until this point has to do with burying the pipe and, you know, a little bit of concern of perhaps, you know, the material that ends up, if natural material is dropped into the bottom of the pipe, if that, opens the possibility of it washing out and maybe clogging up at the end of the pipe. George has some experience with the construction of these things and haven't buried one, but haven't necessarily been working in the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. But that's something we're discussing and I think our engineer is gonna reach out to Mr. Hanfield about.
Mr. Elliott, this is Hank. You know, I had submitted an early letter at the request of the commission. Would it be okay if I offer some comments? Sure.
Thank you. Doctor. Paul I just want to make sure that folks are aware the the best management practices by the US Army Corps of Engineers also spans are strongly preferred over culverts as they avoid really minimize disruptions and allow sort of the natural substrate. Doctor. To be maintained. I think that that's, you know, in the report that I provided because one of the concerns I had was, you know, by putting culverts in there's there's the risk of of more of that pressurized situation and more significant alterations to a normal system to the the riparian system and while we're treating it like it's an intermittent To intermittent streams there where it flares out at that point of the crossing. It's really acting as much like a wide wetland system of our appearing system. As much as it is to two separate intermittent streams. So I just want to Doctor. Paul Make the Commission aware that spans are really a strongly preferred method for crossings in a permanent crossings in non title streams and wetlands.
We appreciate that being a best practice. I just would also like to mention to the commission, of course, that that multiplies cost here. There would be a very long crossing and it doesn't, know, something like that wouldn't occur without a lot of impact to the area too. We'd have to excavate and put footings deep into the ground to support a structure of that weight. George, I don't know if you want to make another comment about that, but is certainly cost prohibitive for us.
Andrew Bush and I'll make a comment on that too. May even have to do like mid span support for across a bridge crossing that long.
This is Hank again, which I think both those constraints, I think, argue for the fact that it's a fairly wide water course acting as a pretty significant riparian system. Doctor. Matthew Connected to the Hop River and pretty close proximity to the Hop River. So I think that the challenges associated with the crossing speak to the the ecological issues present on the site. Right, Hank.
Okay, do we have any other comments or questions from the commission?
George, this is Jed. I did have a couple of comments. And I apologize I was not at the last meeting so maybe these things were discussed but I didn't see them in the minutes that we got today. Go ahead.
I was curious as to how this filling of the wetlands size wise compares to others that we may have approved or disapproved. Far as I know, in the time I've been on the commission, this is the first time we have considered a significant activity. And so my thoughts were this is significantly bigger than anything that we had dealt with in the past. I was curious if agent Wagner might have some idea about other things were approved or not approved for comparison.
I'm not aware. I've been my experience with Andover's commission doesn't go back that far. So yeah, nothing that I can think of. There was the Townsend Road one, but that was a it didn't involve nearly as much Phil. That was before I got here too. The
other question that I had is I know that when we go through the application, when you're causing a detrimental effect on a wetlands, it also talks about things that you can do to mitigate the effect by enhancing the other wetlands on the property. And given that this is such an extensive filling of a wetland, I would think that as a matter of precedent, we would want to make certain that we considered what are we doing to enhance the health of the wetlands and the other concerns that Hank made going into this as part of our application. And my last comment was I thought I saw on the drawings an elevation drawing of the driveway going down where we carved it, changed the elevation before we got to the wetland itself and then we build it up six feet or so. And in preparation for the
meeting today, was not able to find that. And I was just curious if that was something that I dreamed or I just couldn't find it today. It's this. Yeah. Yeah, we submitted a plan profile.
Okay, so I'll just look harder for that part. Would
have been the third page on those sets of drawings.
It's the ones labeled Rev1.11.21. Okay. And the cross section is shown as you pointed out on the third page there. So yeah, I would comment that we'd have to regard this crossing, although obviously it's a much larger volume because it's being built up. The length of the crossing isn't that much greater than, for example, what we permitted on Townsend Road. Speaking to the characteristics of stream, I know that when we took our sidewalk as a commission, it was before things started getting wet. And although it was clearly a wet area, there was no flow at that time. Right.
Hey, Brandon. As far as the water flow, I've been out there probably 40 times now and it seems like from about April until November or so, dry. There's no water flow. It might get a little soggy when with a lot of rain because the runoff ends up down there, but it's pretty dry. Those photos that you saw from George Logan, that's the wettest I've seen it since I've been going out there. But that's not to say that doesn't happen if we would go out there today, I'm sure it's flowing like that right now. But it doesn't flow like that all the time.
Yeah, I wouldn't think it would. Mean, my rough estimate was probably a 50 acre watershed. I don't know if Andy can confirm that, but it wouldn't surprise me that it does dry up during times of years and it's certainly intermittent. And I'm not implying that army corps doesn't apply here. Just I'm not sure. Yeah, and I think it's prudent to consider those measures.
I mean, I think if we if we consider those measures that would that would go, you know, towards the mitigation or less detrimental disturbance to the wetland too, you know.
And I don't know what your calculations flushed out, but you know, if you can do a single span and meet the army corps threshold and by span I don't mean a bridge. I mean you can accomplish that with a culvert that's buried.
Right, rerun the couch. That's why I've been holding off and sending them to you like talked about to see where we're gonna go with this. And if we're, we wanna try to 48 inches with natural bottom and we'll rerun the couch and see where that brings us. That brings us to a pressure situation or not.
Yeah, there's squash pipes, all kinds of methods where you can increase the span down low and still use a rigid bottom structure so you don't have to worry about scour and erosion for large excavations and stuff like that. So I think it's worth taking a look at.
Okay. Again, any further questions, comments from the commission? In that case, I think we can end the discussion on this application. It seems like we can probably look forward to revised application, revised plans at our next meeting with the devilish details worked out to answer the questions that have been raised. So is that agreeable to all the parties? You can wave at me or whatever if you're muted. Good with us.
George, how are you doing as far as time frame? Which George? Acting Chair Elliott. Commissioner Halsey what was your question there. Checking on the time frame for a decision.
Agent Wagner because of the COVID extensions. It's on the chart here in the back of the agenda. It's May 11. May 11. Yeah. We're 25. Okay.
We're good. Okay, that being the case, again, we will defer further consideration of this application until our next regular meeting. And I will turn the meeting back over to Chairman Lolly.
All right. So that brings us to item, what is now eight, enforcement actions. There's only one item under that which is item a Mr. Baum thirty three route eighty seven. The commission received a letter from agent Wagner dated 01/18/2021 regarding the status of this violation. I'll turn it over to agent Wagner to summarize that to the question. I pulled up the letter. Alright. Mindy, can you pull that letter up? Let's see. Should be under enforcement actions.
Yeah, it's the last. Basically, I think I showed the commission the pictures in the last regular meeting that we had. So that was basically the condition it was in. There was hay bales placed along the edge of the remediated area, rocks, the fill and debris in 41 Route 87 that was previously disturbed, had been removed. The area disturbance was graded and, seed and hay or straw is placed over the graded area. Not sure how much that's gonna do this time of year, but it's pretty level. Didn't look like a real, like an erosion risk. So that basically, from my view, I didn't I didn't see it previously, but I believe that the remediation has been completed on 41 Route 87, which is why I wrote this letter to the commission.
But both orders, there there was two what was the one? There was one an order to remediate on February that was issued on 02/24/2020 to 33 And 41 Route 87, and then there was another one that was issued at a different date. I don't have the date. But either way, we can't remove this order because it also includes the remediation on 33 Route 87, which I talked to Kurt. It was last week or the week before. He said Mark Williams had come up with a plan for moving the shed using his equipment. I think his excavator. I don't know what exactly he was gonna do, but he'd come up with something. He was repairing a saw that was used gonna be used to cut the driveway to move it, and then that's basically finding time where Mark can do it and the weather would cooperate, which knows if it will now. So that's where we're at with that. I viewed the stream. There's no risk of
there's no, like, increased risk of erosion in its current condition. There's a culvert that restricts the water flow rate before the debris that's that was deposited without a permit that that's still there. That has yet to be removed. So it's kinda pretty stable in that area. That's what I have for that one.
Agent Wagner, did you get any input from the owner of 4187? No. I have not spoke to her. Just curious.
She had expressed concern about the potential for erosion causing, stream blockage and flow, but it sounds to me that that's probably not going to be an issue. From what you were saying, agent Wagner, the situation seemed stable.
Yeah, from what I see. And I, the pictures that that are posted on the website for my visit there. They have pretty good. They show the culvert and the stream, it kind of opens up after the culvert. It just doesn't look like a look like a precarious situation. It looks pretty stable. There's still still vegetation along the stream bank. Yeah. That one there, you can see basically where you can't see the stream anymore, and then the large rock, that's where the culvert comes out. And then see how it kinda opens up after afterward on both sides kind of flares out past that. So the culverts the major restriction and then it opens up after that. So the velocity should slow down and then it looked pretty stable to me.
Any additional questions of agent Wagner? So his recommendation, if I can paraphrase to the commission is to motion, to remove the order to remediate for the violation that occurred by Mr. Baum on Route 41 Route 87.
What I was saying was that that one includes information. It it includes remediation on 33 Route 87, which is mister Bohm's property, and that hasn't been completed yet because the shed hasn't been moved. So Right. So it's like two forty one. I I think it would be confusing to remove that one and then still have remediation to do because there's two on the record. Two orders? Yeah. But neither is specific to 41?
No. One of them is just 33 and the other one is 33 and 41. So we can't really yeah. I I think it would be the the two orders for 33 basically same see the say the same thing, but I think it would be more straightforward to just wait until 33 is completed to remove pull forwarder.
Any additional discussion or comments by the commission? Okay, so it sounds like there's nothing further for this agenda item. So if there's no further questions or discussion, we'll move on to what is now nine on the agenda agent report. And you don't have to repeat what we've already covered, but if you have any additional complaints that inspections pre app meetings, admin approvals, anything like that, the commission would like to know. Yeah. Just today I received
an application for a garage on 33 Gilead Road that it's a 12 by 24 foot garage, and it'll be replacing an eight by eight shed. And plan was posted this afternoon so the commission can review it. But it was basically the the shed is gonna get removed, and the garage will be placed on the existing driveway and the footprint of the shed. So it's pretty minimal impact. It's in the upland review area. So I think that's a suitable one for aid and approval. So I was gonna do that. Like I said, it was just received today. Then around the shed, it's all surrounded by lawn and and everything. So it wouldn't be a it wouldn't be a big disturbance. And then two potential violations. I received a report of a temporary garage and unregistered vehicles in Upland Review area at 41 Hebron or 41 Route 87. Might sound familiar. I have not been to the property to investigate it yet. And then I received a report of a potential permit violation during construction at 27 Hendy Road. Was quote unprotected dirt piles near the steep slope and the slope itself looks like it's getting pretty badly eroded unquote. There's also mentioned that there's heavy equipment in the floodplain. When I went to visit, I didn't see the heavy equipment. And I saw the erosion. And I'm going to refer to the construction plan
to see if the sedimentation erosion control plans are being adhered to. And then I'll let you know at the next meeting if I find.
Questions of agent Wagner? Hearing none, we can move on to item 10 on the agenda, which is other business. We have a new item 10A, which is a Conservation Commission update by Mr. Gruner regarding the vernal pool mapping initiative.
Still there, Hank? I am, thank you. So I just wanted to give a quick update to folks. You remember at the January 12 meeting we discussed the joint initiative for vertical pool mapping. Doctor. And coincidentally, the following day I did receive notification from the program head at University of Connecticut that there were two students interested in participating in the mapping project and a faculty member. So we had a follow-up call. Late last week and that project is now ongoing and will be the first phase of it, which is really just the will be the mapping of potential vertical pools. Doctor. Paul And the calculations of the the upland areas around those pools in a couple of different zones that will both of those activities will be completed by mid April. That's the target date. The students would also through the program and the faculty member like to be able to provide
some Paul Presentation to the Commission's at some point, probably in May, and that could be an evening presentation. More information to follow on that. But I just wanted to let folks know that that looks like it's now moving into an active project. Any questions or comments from the Commission? Just glad to hear it. It'll be fun.
Okay. I I did drop your name to Greenwich is interested in doing some vernal pool mapping. I'm gonna just mention it now even though it's not related to Andover in case I forget to follow-up with you. So I'll follow-up with you regarding it. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Any other conservation commission updates we should be aware of while we have you? Sorry, I muted myself. No, I believe that's it.
All right, so then that takes us to what's now 10 b on the agenda, which is taking a receipt of the revised IWWC bylaws, which, vice chairman Elliott was kind enough to compile for us. And I believe were distributed by email to the commission. Yes. On January 27, he sent those out to us. So I'll turn it over to George for this.
It was sort of a cross between what my wife and editor refers to as janitorial work and also, of course, trying to incorporate the comments on the bylaws that were made at previous meetings. I started with the revision that was provided by Agent Wagner and accepted all those changes for shall to will or must or appropriate language. And some other basically grammatical and phrasing issues. I believe also incorporated some suggestions into that. And I've incorporated some of the suggestions that we had previously discussed. So what I distributed then was a document that I hope includes all the necessary changes and which is now a grammar and spell check. However, I would encourage, I would plead with members of the commission to go through it with a fine tooth comb because as you know, the more you look at a document, the blurrier it gets. If you look at it using Word and you use the View option of showing the changes, showing the markup, you will see various colors. There's, I believe, red and blue and purple, and a whole chroma of changes added by different persons. But if you can get beyond that, just try and make sure that everything still makes sense. And the big changes were changes to the order of agenda for the meeting to update to our current practice, incorporating in the bylaws a provision for remote meetings, even absent of executive orders from the governor's office, and providing for that for remote participation by both commissioners and the public in the future. So that's it as far as I'm concerned. If there are any questions or comments, I'd be happy to try to address them.
Any questions or comments for George? Okay, so what I'd ask is that everybody look at the bylaws if you haven't already before the next meeting so that hopefully we can at our next meeting. And I don't believe they're put online
because that It was appropriate to put them online yet because they're in process. Obviously, the revised bylaws should go up, but I just So
just so the commission's aware, it's not posted online. If you're looking for them online that you have to go through your email to get a copy. If you can't find it, email George. All
right, so that takes us to ten C on the agenda, which was upcoming training opportunities. There's two that I'm aware of the Connecticut Conference of Natural Resources, which is held by UConn every year is gonna be hosted virtually this year on Monday, March 15. It's an all day conference from nine to 03:30 and registration is $30 If anyone's interested in attending that, let me know. I believe we should have funding available to cover. It's not specific to wetlands law or anything like that. It's more general conservation topics and research that's related to wildlife plants, things like that. Attending and then Mindy brought to my attention this evening that the Connecticut Coastal Conservation District is holding a two part workshop that is specific to wetlands. There's multiple options offered. It's two days. Mindy, is there anything online that you can pull up? I know you sent me by text the flyer. Yeah, let me So it's free to attend the one that we're talking about while she pulls it up. And there's a, it is two parts, but there's four offerings. Those two parts if you want to attend. And it says, it'll cover site plan and site plan review, what to look for on a sidewalk, things along those nature. So it's Janet Brooks, who's an experienced wetland attorney and then staff person from the conservation district. So it sounds good. It's I believe there are weekend as well as evening, weekday evening options. So those that work and know, or might otherwise have daytime conflicts. It's not during the weekday hours. I can send information out by email to the commission about those two opportunities. I'd encourage everyone that's interested to participate in trainings. I think, there's always opportunity for us to learn more, and clarify what
we think we know. Any questions about either of those opportunities? And for those that don't know Mindy, her day job, she works not for the coastal conservation district, but for one of the other conservation districts. Are you working for Mindy Northwest? North Central, it's Holland and Hartford County. I'm hearing nothing. We'll move on to what's now eleven on the agenda, which is a reminder that our next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 1 at 07:00. Are there any known conflicts that commissioners won't be able to attend that meeting? Then hopefully we will have a quorum. Last chance to add anything before we entertain a motion to adjourn? Nothing, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
I'll move to adjourn. Second.
So motion by Commissioner Halsey, seconded by Commissioner Larson. All in favor? Just say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion carries five zero zero. Meeting is adjourned at 08:27. So I will see you all on the first I hope. Thank you. Okay. Have a good night everyone.