Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Special Meeting
August 31, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Talking my clock. I'm just gonna check to make sure we have a quorum. What's your so are you ready, Linda? I'm all set. Do we lose Linda? I'm all set. Oh, okay. Great. All right. So then it is 07:01 by my computer. It's 08/31/2020. I'm Megan Lally. I'm going to call the special meeting of the town of Andover's Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission to order. Ask that everybody please mute themselves. The commissioners are requested to keep their video on throughout the meeting. Members of the public, it's optional, though it is preferable if you go to speak to turn your video on just helps
clarify. So I'm going go ahead and make sure that people who aren't muted and just in case they're walking around their houses I'm going to mute them. Okay, so believe everyone is on mute. Okay, so we'll do a quick unmute of the Commissioners in order to do roll call. All right. Megan Halley, chair, obviously present. Vice Chairman George Elliott is present. I see Commissioner Ed Smith, Commissioner Jim Halsey, and Commissioner Jed Larson. So we have all of our regular commissioners in attendance. She has not yet been appointed to the commission, but we will be submitting a recommendation to the board as recommended to do so. But Gabrielle Anderson is also on the meeting today, listening in. Don't have any commentary or voting privileges during this meeting. And then is William Paul? Yes. Oh, I see you. Okay. Great.
Allison's iPad. Got it. Alright. So mister Monroe has also expressed interest in the commission. I invited him to listen in on tonight's meeting, so I wanted to check if he was on the line. Okay. So there's no need to cede any alternates. We'll move on to the third item of the agenda, which is the approval of the minutes. All of the commissioners should have received a copy of the 08/03/2020 regular meeting minutes, and they are posted online as well for members of the public to view. And I will open the floor to any discussion on the minutes.
This is Jed on page two, the third paragraph down, second sentence, a little typo talks about the back property line is not crowded and it's missing the D.
Other comments on the minutes? I was not present at the meeting, but I had a comment regarding page four, the line or the first and second line from the top. It notes that Ms. Puerto is working with her engineer to resubmit a new permit regarding the activities at 129 Hebron Road. And I'm just concerned about the language there because the commission has not received permit or application from that property. So I would recommend that the minutes be revised accordingly.
Yes, Commissioner, Chairman, Jim Hallessey, did you hear my earlier comment or I was muted?
I did not hear your comment. I apologize. Okay. Number
11 indicates that I moved to schedule a special meeting. I believe what I actually did was just point out the action date, The mandatory action date on the application. This for specifically for 12 Webster Lane.
That'd be good. Linda, did you get that? Believe, I'll, but I believe Jim actually did make the motion. I'll check the audio on that and if it's incorrect, I'll correct it. Okay.
I thought we were waiting for for request extension request extension request from the applicant. Okay, whatever the audio says is right. Any further discussion?
So back to your comment, Megan, on page four, was your concern that instead of resubmit a new permit, it was submit a new permit? Because we haven't actually got one yet?
Correct. Yeah, the activities are not permitted by wetlands and we have not received an application yet. So I just didn't want the record to be misleading. So I not having been present, if those who are present are in agreement, I would suggest changing the language to to submit an application for a permit.
I agree with that based on my recollection from the meeting.
Any further discussion on the minutes? Vice Chairman Elliott or Commissioner Smith, did you have any comments? No. None. Hearing Okay. No further discussion, I'll entertain a motion.
Mr. Kidd, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from August 3.
I'll second. Motion made by Jed Larson, seconded by George Elliott to approve the August 3 regular minutes with the corrections noted. Any additional discussion? I'll do a roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott? Aye. Commissioner Analisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson. Aye.
Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chairman McNally will abstain having not been present. So motion carries four zero one. So that brings us to item four on the agenda permit applications and I didn't mention at the beginning of the meeting but those who are unfamiliar with the special meeting we can't make additions or deletions to the agenda. We can potentially change the order but just so everyone's clear we can't be adding items hoping to sit through the meeting and then add something at the end, I'll stay through the pain. Okay. So moving on, item 4A was discussion of application IWWC twenty-twenty one submitted by Manuel Correa and Jerry Hardesty for activities at twelve Webster Lane, a subdivision and new residential construction in an Upland Review area. And I do believe we've had some new materials submitted since our last meeting, which I have asked agent Wagner to present to the commission.
Yeah. I had a letter from well, I had a new site plan that show the house rotated 90 degrees. That was posted Friday, I believe. And then there was a a letter dated August 31 from engineer Brandon Hanfield, and his evaluation of the current plan. And then there's another letter from, Hank Bruner, also August 31 that has some recommendations and his analysis of the current site plan. That's that's it for the new materials.
Do any of the commissioners need a minute to review those materials?
What was the question? I have all the materials, I think.
I'm hopeful everyone was able to review them in advance of the meeting but did anyone need, did anyone not receive the materials or need a minute to look at a specific item before we proceed with the discussion? I received them. Commissioners, Halsey, Larson, or Elliot?
Chairman, did receive the materials and I have reviewed them. So is she at
policy as well? Have or have not. I'm sorry, I couldn't understand. Go ahead, Commissioner Larson. I'm all set.
Okay, thank you. Okay, then I'm going to proceed with discussion on the application. I'll open the floor. Excuse me? Have
not seen the letter from Hank Bruner. I didn't get a copy of this sent to me and I didn't get a copy of the one from the reviewing engineer either. I I read their comments in their minutes, but I haven't seen their letter, and I can't see the bottom of Hank's letter here on my screen.
So I'm gonna switch over hopefully to the town website. Can you see my screen? Does it have a application submitted pending?
No. Because I can't scroll down for whatever reason. Okay. Letter of confirm.
Is it a web right now? Can't see what I think I'm sharing what I'm sharing, but I can't tell. Website, is it the town's website? That's what's showing on my screen right now
so all materials received by the commission posted to this page under the Associated Application. So a reference would be for Agent Wagner to forward materials to the applicant and their authorized agents as they come in. But you can also always check here. And the information that's the next discussion item. But the information will be on here. So go through them. But items that agent Wagner just talked about were the revised site plan. We sent correspondence to you. It was submitted on August 10, but it doesn't have a revision date on it that's different from the previous versions that are submitted. So that's something we want to discuss with you this evening. And then the letter from Hank Bruner dated the thirty first and the letter from engineer Hanfield also dated the third. I I need to clarify something here,
Megan, if I could. The revised site plan on 08/10 is not what we are applying for. That is to demonstrate an alternative. Frankly, my clients have told me that if that's what you're going to approve, then we might as well just skip the application because that scenario doesn't work for them.
I don't think that was made clear to the commission. That was forwarded to us with the understanding that it was a revised site plan. I'm gonna find that out. It
is the site plan that will be it's the site plan that will be submitted to planning and zoning because it meets the subdivision regulations. All right, but the house turned in that direction and the driveways and the septic system are not something that they feel is Okay. Is worth constructing. This I think
Alright so we don't want to see planning and zoning documents. We need to know what materials you're submitting in support of the wetlands application. If there's something that wetlands should not be considering then it should not be presented to wetlands because going to confuse things.
Are you there, mister Hardisty? Yes. I am. I yeah. You were you're frozen on my screen, so I didn't hear the the last of what you were saying. But at the last meeting Yeah. I'm I'm having trouble. Can everybody else hear me? Alice, we can hear you. I can hear you.
At the last meeting, mister Larson expressed concern that that the plans were not consistent, that he was seeing two different plans. And I I wanted to illustrate that we can show a plan that is compliant with the subdivision regulations. But this is not the plan that we expect to that my clients would expect to construct. The very first set of plans that I submitted that are that have a big preliminary across the bottom of them, that is the layout that we would propose to construct. That's the layout that we presented initially. It's the one that we feel is most appropriate, and it's the same one that mister Elliott made a motion to approve on the June 1.
The map that's on the screen difficulty and because you haven't been providing revision dates or, any explanation to the nature of what you just said on on the design plan. So that's, confusing to me at least. So what you're saying is the map that we see on the screen, which it's still dated the latest is August 2, but it was actually since then is those design to be considered for the rather an alternate design that the applicant that correct?
Megan, I I lost the last half of what you were saying. I'm sorry. I'm
also only picking up bits and pieces of what you're saying, Megan.
I'll give me one second. I'm always not my friend. Apparently, don't have self-service in the town community room, and the Internet reception is poor. So I'm gonna do my best. So I think we're confused by this site plan. And I just want to make sure that we're clear. So what I was asking is, is this plan, the one that's it's dated 08/02/2020 as the latest revision, but it was actually revised more recently than that. It has the house rotated 90 degrees. That's an alternative in wetlands language. That's an alternative applicant considered and subsequently rejected? Correct. Okay. And can you explain the reasons for rejection?
Yeah. They didn't feel like a a garage forward situation like that and turned at the strange angle that it is and having the driveway where it is with the proposed septic system in a less desirable location, the whole thing didn't work for them. And they felt that if that was all they could do with that particular lot, that it would not be worth the continued efforts to have it approved. They didn't wanna build that house.
And I'm gonna close this version and go back. I believe that might be this one. Let me check. This is the original site plan dated 08/02/2020 that I think was the most recent version of the design that the applicant is proposing. Is this correct? Yes. With one This is the design that the commission will consider. No? I
add one more caveat to this, though. If I might, I would prefer that we switch the primary and reserve septic systems. I don't think that will have any impact at all on the wetlands, and it will be a far better septic system design.
Does that bring us back to the initial plan you submitted?
Well the initial plan I submitted was the one that we'd most like to have enacted. Yes.
That's my question. So I'm gonna go to the initial plan submitted. We can only approve a plan. We need to be clear on which one it is we're considering.
I would like the very first plan that was submitted to be acted on, the one that mister Elliott was going to act on on the June 1.
Okay. You keep bringing that up. The the fact of the matter is that motion was not acted on. That's correct. So we're going to proceed with tonight's question.
Excuse me. Again, with reference to the documents that we have on file, the description of the first plan doesn't really help. I need a document number. I need some kind of identification so that I can pull up that file without having to grope all over. There you go.
Okay, this is the screen sharing file. Talk career supplemental information.
This is the original map that was submitted with the application. It does not address any comments submitted subsequently by either engineer Hanfield or Mr. Gruner as it was received prior to those comments. And this is the design that you'd like the commission to
This is. Now, again, if the commission feels that it's most important to to move the house a few feet further to the Southwest or move something a couple of feet, then I don't have a problem with that. But this is the most appropriate layout for this house on this lot. And and this is this is what my clients would like to have approved. There really should be no reason not to approve this. Because we're in the we're in the Uplander area being asked to do. I'm sorry. Was that a question?
No. You started speaking, and I was giving you a chance to speak.
Because this is in the Upland Review area, we can always review area and then commissioner perhaps
Commissioner Larson could speak to the concerns that he brought up last time on this plan, the first plan submitted.
So the it and I was gonna ask Jerry, help me understand why this diagram with the septic layout is preferable in your mind to the one that puts the actual septic system outside the upland review area?
Because of these because of the slope of the land, Jed, towards the towards the center of this property where the where the property where the new property line would be is a very flat area. And as we approach the wetlands, it gets steeper and steeper. The Connecticut Health Code requires that there be a minimum leaching system spread, and that is calculated based on the depth of decent soil and the slope of the land. So as the land slopes greater and greater, the smaller the system can be as far as the length. The soils are better and the slope is better towards test pit numbers number c, TPC. So that's the area that we would like to have the septic system because it's the most appropriate for a septic system. We're still more than 50 feet from the wetlands, and and it should be fine, and there should be no contamination to the wetlands from that system. Also, we'll keep the driveway on the uphill side of it so that any compaction of soils won't interfere with the septic system.
Okay and to me that sounds reasonable. I'm not a soil scientist, a civil engineer, or any of those kind of things, but we did have both an outside engineer and we've got Hank Gruner that submitted letters recommending that, you know, they both suggested putting the septic system outside the 100 foot and rotating the house. That's what I was looking for was for a discussion on that. And at this point, because the second submission had the septic tank swapped, that was consistent with our engineer's recommendation. And so he hasn't I don't know that we've gotten the opportunity to have him listen to the discussion on, is it okay in his mind? He recommended moving it outside 100 foot. I would have thought that he would consider all the same information that you're you're telling us tonight on the soils and slopes and and all that kind of stuff.
I'm well, I'm sure that he didn't look to design the septic system. And if he had, then he would have made a mention of the of the min minimum leaching system spread calculation, and that's that's one of the aspects of this. The other thing is that he was asked to look at what could be done to stay out of the you know, what could be done to minimize those things, you know, stay out of the 100 foot setback, and you can do that. And and I've shown that. You can stay out of the 100 foot setback area, but it's not the appropriate use of this land. It's not the best use of this land. And what we have shown is can be done without an impact to the wetlands, in my opinion. And and I think it should be your opinion too, to be honest with you. And this should be approved conditional on the septic system being no greater than or no closer than 57 feet to the wetlands and that the house should be no greater no closer than 75 feet to wetlands.
And if it needs to be moved another five or 10 feet, then you say, you know, 85 feet from wetlands. But to require them Unfortunately
Okay. Sorry. I'm gonna ask you to to hold on for a second. Unfortunately, engineer Hanfield is not on the call this evening, so we can't ask for his input at the moment. But I believe based on the last letter he submitted was based on most recent site plan submitted, which we did not understand was an alternative that was rejected. I'm pulling that up now. Unclear to me whether this letter is addressing the original version or the revised version. Gonna ask mister Bruner is on the line this evening, however, so I'm gonna ask him to speak. We did have a a most recent letter from him, the the dated August 31 letter. And I'm going to ask him to submit comments to the commission as to how his opinion has changed, if at all, based on tonight's discussion that the plan to be considered as the original plan, the most recent one that was submitted.
Are you on the line? Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Can everybody guess? Go ahead. I can hear you.
Great. Yeah, from my perspective, it doesn't really change much regarding my recommendations associated with the driveway and the, you know, vegetation along the edge of the fence line in the wetland. You know the issue is I think during pre construction and during construction it's easy to handle the soil erosion control is as Mr. Hanfield also mentioned my original concerns were one of you know the state the condition is left after when you have more impervious service with a driveway there you have more lawn you have you know a portion of the house and the recommendations I had were for how to mitigate against that. So what I put in the updated what letter that I submitted today was that, you know, to include a gravel driveway rather than a paved driveway to minimize impervious surface in either of the configurations to maintain a 25 foot strip of unmoan or annually mown land that would extend from the fence line area out, where that's obviously that's only feasible once you get to a part where it's you can gain the 25 feet because the driveway comes in pretty tight to the wetland immediately adjacent at the entrance, but the goal of that is to provide a level of vegetation that that is more absorptive, it's not forested there, you do have a tree line but the goal is to rather than having lawn right up to the tree line, try to buffer that with some thicker vegetation that gives you a little bit more buffering capacity
for the wetland corridor there. So those are really the two key pieces regardless of whether the house was within the 100 foot zone or kicked out of the 100 foot zone. Obviously having it kicked out is helpful and that it reduces disturbance within that area which serves as a know, a buffer but you know the gaining you know the amount of distance there is to me is more minimal as long as best management practices are followed. I am a little I am not an engineer, so I can't speak highly about the septic, but that is something I think that to be considered because that is fairly close to a wetland system and septic systems. Well, they're good. Not necessarily catch everything and you know that should be looked at carefully. From an ecological standpoint, I don't necessarily see a huge issue because as I mentioned in my first report that the value of this system is less, there's not a lot of standing water they're serving as breeding sites for any species of amphibians or fish or any of the wildlife like that. It's more of a corridor, it's more of an intermittent
drainage swale that basically serves as an ecological corridor. So I'm actually less concerned about inputs that would affect any breeding populations that might be there. So, you know, I think there's more flexibility for consideration, given the lower ecological value. My main concern is really more trying to mitigate some of those potential impacts by increasing the buffering potential through vegetation as well as through preventing, you know, more more pavement in the area because it's also a fairly impacted system with a roadway that's already there is surrounded by residential development. So avoiding any additional impacts, I think would be very helpful. Alternative that might be considered also is to plant some some low shrubs or some denser shrub growth along the perimeter of the driveway to provide a little bit more structure that can also be visually aesthetic and pleasing to the applicant, I would think. And that could also be a way to sort of help out with some of the buffering capacity.
So I my opinion from an ecological perspective, it would be really looking again at the septic and giving more consideration to that as long as the applicant was willing to consider some of these best management approaches to the driveway and to the you know vegetation maintenance on that side of the lot.
Thank you Mr. Krueger. Can you clarify the commission for the commission? Do you feel that the design presented on screen, the original design submitted is likely to physically impact the wetlands?
Yes, as I said in my letter that I submitted today, whenever you develop it's pretty well documented that development within 100 feet actually it can be as close as 150 feet depending on the type of type of development type of activity. There's various factors, but If you look at a lot of recommendations, a lot of reasons why towns have 100 foot setback areas or review areas is because the literature supports that there's activity within that zone typically can have impacts on the wetland system. So I believe that there would be some impacts to the physical characteristics likely through runoff associated with the driveway
use of fertilizers on lawns, things like that. Those are the typical things additional nutrients that also gets into what the septic impacts can be because you can get some nitrogen input or various inputs that can come through the septic systems and including chemicals that are disposed of you know pharmaceuticals and so forth. But that has to be weighed within consideration of you know looking at the soils and looking at the slopes and looking at a variety of characteristics. I think it's easy in in in a number of cases, it's you can use best management practices to start to mitigate some of that, which is why despite the fact I felt that there were likely to be impacts associated with development within the 100 foot zone that there were some mitigative measures that could be taken to lessen those impacts. Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Brunner? Smith has no questions. Alexey, no questions.
Again, I have a question regarding Hanfield's letter, which I'm trying to pull up here, to the effect that essentially no impact,
no adverse Sorry to interrupt. Is it the one dated Is it the 08/31/2001? That's right.
Did you have a question George? Didn't hear a question, sorry.
Okay it says here that it is my opinion that the proposed plan will not result in adverse or significant impact to the inland wetlands and watercourses, presuming the conditions that follow. So the question in my mind is which preliminary plan exactly is he referring to here? As far as I can tell, his letter does refer to the plan that engineer Hardisty would like us to approve as part of the that that is the basis for the application.
I agree with you. As I read the letter it seems to reference the initial site plan submitted that was labeled preliminary on the bottom and dated only August 2639 with no revisions. So yes. Okay. Any additional discussion by the commission? Any questions of either mister Bruner or engineer Hardesty?
No, I think the original plan was is the most appropriate plan, the most beneficial use of this plan. I think it can be
I think the house and septic system as shown can be constructed with Mister Hardisty, I I understand. I'm I'm giving the commission a chance to ask questions or or discuss. Yep. Okay. If you have new information to add, I'd be happy with that. But otherwise, just please refrain from it. Smith has no questions. Larson has no questions. I
don't see no questions. Thank you. Agent Wagner, anything additional to add? No.
Megan, would it be appropriate to ask Kevin if he has any comments? I'm not sure he's still on the line, but he's faithfully attended every one of our sessions without having the opportunity to say anything.
I am blanking on his last name. If you can assist me with that, that would be did someone say it? Arneson. Okay.
Thank you. I believe you're referring to the adjacent neighbor. Arneson. Thank you. I see him on line. I'm gonna mister Arneson. And he did it himself. Sorry about that. Ahead. Would you like to add any comment for the commission to consider before it possibly makes a decision on this application?
I don't. I will have questions for the planning and zoning commission but nothing that applies to the wetlands commission. The only thing was just the septic being within the 100 foot up on review area.
What about it? Do you have a question or statement related to it? No. I'm I mean, it it's clearly shown on the plan.
Everything's defined. So, I I really don't I don't have any questions at this time.
Thank you. I'm going to open the floor for discussion and if there's no further discussion I would entertain a motion.
This is Jed. And I guess I would ask Jerry if his client would still consider building the property if we asked him to put the septic outside the 100 foot upland review area.
I don't see Jerry in front of his screen. I'm not sure if he left the room for a moment. Oh, he's back. Can you repeat your question, Jeff? I don't know
the answer to that, to be honest with you, Jed. I really don't. Moving the septic system outside of the 100 foot buffer is going to require a bigger system, and I don't see it operating as well. I don't know the answer to that. I really don't. Okay.
And I didn't have any other questions. Do feel ready to make a decision on this application? Thank you. So I will add to the conversation if it's relevant. One minute, Mr. Chairman Elliott. So we did speak to our special lanes about this application as well as others. And he us that in order to request alternative to be considered and I might not be paraphrasing exactly correctly but you need to have reason to believe that there's an impact from the a physical impact to the wetland of the current design. I have not seen any information presented that would demonstrate the current system is likely to have a physical impact on the wetland. Any of the other commissioners feel like speak up at this point?
Vice Chairman Elliott, did you have a comment to add or a question? I was wondering if we were ready to entertain a motion. I'm ready.
Okay. I would move to approve the application with standard conditions and with let's see how to phrase it. I would like to see the recommendations by Mr. Gruner included in the conditions of the permit. Do I have a second for the motion? Ed Smith seconds the motion made by George Elliott. Thank you. I'll open the floor to discussion.
How is he? I just had a concern as to how we would structure an approval that would raise Hank Kruger's recommendation as opposed to just a blanket reference to his letter. You said that the maintenance of a. Appreciate it. I'm just wondering how and this came up before at a previous meeting. You know, indicated it was simply a your recommendation. I'm wondering if if that would be the extent of it. Or whether we would have something added to the plan that would be just part of the site plan and enforced as such.
Do any other commissioners have So Commissioner Smith, I would say that we just use those three bullet points as far as the adjustments.
I think I'll just point out I believe the third bullet is is addressed by our standard conditions. So it would really be the, the first two bullets that would be additions to the special conditions of the permit if the commission says.
Megan, this is Go ahead, Angel. The last one said look on the paper. That the other wetland on the other side of the property should be protected with sediment and erosion control fencing. It doesn't have a bullet point, but it looks like it should. It's the last
Is that you I'm sorry. Would that be a recommendation that you would include?
That would be part of his recommendations. There would be the three bullet points, and then there was another one on page two that doesn't have a bullet point, but it looks like it's a separate recommendation. I remember talking about it with Hank. So I think I would add those four as conditions. Megan, did you want me to address that? This is Hank. Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
Yeah. The reason I didn't bullet that was because the first three bullets were really associated with the wetland system there on the east that drainage and that was a separate one. And I believe Megan is correct that the bullet I included the third bullet, Installing sediment erosion control barriers is definitely caught by the basic regulations and also, know, is is already planned. I just wanted to reiterate that so it really be those first two bullets regarding that wetland on the East and then as Joe was mentioning and in abundance of caution I saw that although it was noted that due to the topography it was highly unlikely that runoff would be going toward the small wetland depressions. I thought it would be good to just out of abundance of caution to encircle those with some or at least on the disturbance side with some sediment fencing.
You. Agent Wagner, are there any additional special conditions that you would recommend the Commission consider as part of a permanent approval? Nothing I can think of.
This is Jed. I'd like to ask Hank one more time to just make clear to me his initial letter that recommended the septic outside the 100 foot. He had some he had some concerns about that and why he wanted it outside the 100 foot upland review. He is okay with the with us putting he is okay with Jerry's rationale for why we would put it inside the Upland Review area?
I actually don't believe that I addressed the septic in my initial review. I think that came up. I did not. I talked about pushing the house reconfiguring the housing lot. James That position in the house and the and then the issues of the buffering capacity I dealt with. James The, I mean, I think the septic system. You know, that's a I mean, that's really a big engineering question. From an ecological standpoint, I didn't feel because I did not see anything that was a vernal pool or held water that would likely support breeding populations of amphibians or fish or invertebrates that you know I wasn't really as much worried about septic inputs or or heavily worried about. You know the proximity. I wanted to try to mitigate as much as possible was the goal that I put in there.
Given the value that I had assigned to the system based on its ecological functions. So I didn't really get into the septic system at all. Did not, I did not pull that out and call that out. I really dealt with the housing location more from an impervious surface standpoint, as well as the driveway and the the revegetation. Okay, thank you, Hank. Yep.
Mr. Gurners, your recommendation, let's see, you had noted a recommendation to maintain a gravel rather than a paved driveway. Is the intention of that recommendation basically to improve the perviousness of the driveway and therefore would other materials other than gravel be part of your recommendation, for example, pervious pavement or things like that, the applicant options? Sure, yeah, that's
exactly what the recommendation is for is to eliminate a paved surface that has high runoff so pervious pavers would be fine, gravel driveway would be fine, there's various ways that techniques that could be used for that certainly. The goal is to try to just avoid the impervious surface.
Halsey, I believe that the intent of the boat was to comply with the fire marshal with provide a turnaround.
Is this the bump out we're referring to? Okay, thank you.
Yeah, and then simply the recommendation I had with that was once again just trying to reduce Joe and I had talked about this just trying to reduce the amount of impervious surface, but if it's you know essential for safety obviously that trumps.
Mr. Hardisty, can you answer that question whether the bump out is a requirement to meet fire marshal recommendations or requirements?
It's more of a requirement to be able to turn a car around. But that, you know, that includes, emergency access vehicles as well.
Could the bump out be located on the far the other side?
As far as I'm concerned, it could be. Yes. I don't think that there's any restrictions as to proximity to the property line as long as we don't go over it. So, yeah, if that's if if that's that big of an issue then I'm sure we can work around it.
Well, aesthetically, it would would look better to the to the wet, but now it's closer to that those wetlands. Right? I am not qualified to talk about aesthetics. I think that's beyond the scope of our discussion.
I would agree with that statement. And I think it's a valid point that moving the bump outs to the other side of the driveway would is it further from the wetlands that have been the primary focus of our discussion, but it would place it closer to the other wetlands on the property. So the commission should consider that as well. So there's a motion on the floor made by George Elliott, Vice Chairman Elliott to move to approve the application. It was seconded by Ed Smith. The original motion was to approve with the standard conditions and with those of Mr. Rooner as outlined, let's see, in his, I believe, August 31 letter. There any additional discussion? Any modifications to the motion or should we move to vote? Can we take that
as the recommendations as they have evolved as our discussion? That is to say, than eliminate the bump out, we could say modify the bump out to reduce proximity to the wetlands, maintain the 25 strip. As you said, the sediment and erosion controls are part of standard conditions, so they're not additional conditions. And then finally, providing sediment and erosion control for the wetland depressions to the west side of the parcel. So we have three conditions under discussion that are not part of the standard conditions.
Any comments from the commission response to Vice Chairman Elliott? The only other modification to the motion I would recommend would be clarifying that it's a two year permit as opposed to a longer duration permit. And that it applies to the site plan presented. I was concerned by I think it may have been captured in the last meeting motions discussion that the site plan was intended to represent a worst case scenario and left to infer that the site plan could change. If that's the case, if the site plan changes,
this is really a statement directed at the applicant and their agent. If the site plan changes, perhaps through planning and zoning approval, or otherwise a modification would need to be submitted to wetlands for permit approval. So the permit applies only to the site plan as presented. Okay. So I will paraphrase. The motion on the floor is to approve the application as presented in the initial site plan labeled preliminary. Was motion was made by Vice Chairman Elliott, seconded by Chairman Smith. Conditions are to apply as well as the following special conditions as noted in the August 31 letter by Mr. Bruner and modified by the commission's discussion. So essentially, the bump out be redesigned to be located further away from the primary wetlands, the driveway surface be a more pervious surface than asphalt options include but are not limited to gravel,
And that a 25 foot strip of vegetation is maintained out from the existing tree fence line. And the permanent duration is two years. Believe does everyone any comment before we move forward is that motion clear ish to everyone. I will entertain entertain I'll call for a vote at this time, then on the motion so Vice Chairman Elliot, how do you vote. Aye. Commissioner halsy. Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. And Chairman Lele, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. Wagner, if you can work to put the public notice out to allow for the two week public notice period and then draft a permit associated with this application. So the permit would be valid two weeks from this evening and then two years after that. Okay.
Mister Hardisty, did you have any questions of the commission before we move on to the next agenda item? No.
Okay. So then, please be in touch with agent Wagner, and follow-up accordingly. Okay. We'll move on to the next agenda item, which is item 4B, application IWWC 20 dash 23 presented by William and Donna Phillips for activity at 57 Hendy Road, a new residential construction in an upland review area, which includes modification of a flood a floodplain. And I'm going to close out the items from the previous application. Application materials. I'm gonna ask, same as for the last application, if agent Wagner can walk us through the new application materials that have been submitted.
Alright. We have a letter from August 24 from Brandon Anfield reviewing the current plan revised through August 12, and then he reviewed the engineer Andrew Bushnell's response too. And then there was a letter from Brandon Hanfield, August 31. That was where he reviewed the current proposed plan and stated his opinion on it. Then there was also on my screen.
That's the letter from my conversation with Brandon because the applicant wanted a clarification on the term flood prone district. So I sent him her email and asked him for comments, and his comments are included in that in that email in that letter.
Is plan the most recent plan? I have the most recent revision date is August 12. Correct.
Thank you. So I did deliver because this is a big project. Just to be out there, aware I did deliver full size plans to missioners. I personally just happened to the small screen approach. So the exception of, I believe, these last two letters that came in recently, the commissioners were provided with hard copies of the rest of the application material. I will open the floor to I believe I see the applicant and the applicant's engineer, Mr. Krishnell, on the call this evening. So I'll open the floor to discussion by the commission. And then, agent Wagner, did you prepare any materials this evening for the commission to consider in relation to this application? No, I didn't.
Do you have any recommendations for the commission to consider in relation to this application? Nothing that I can think of.
You feel that all of the information requested by the commission, mister Gruner, and engineer Hanfield has been received at this time?
I didn't get a letter from Mr. Gruner. Don't think. On the call?
I am. Would you like me to address that Megan?
Yes. And if you can specifically address any expected physical impacts to the wetland or watercourses, and then your subsequent recommendations,
if any, to mitigate those impacts. Okay. Doctor. Yeah. And the reason I didn't submit a letter I can give you, you know, because really my thinking is not there's really nothing that's changed on my recommendations from the first report. And, you know, quite frankly, one of the challenges with this that I was wrestling back and forth with is, as I stated in my original report. Don't see any direct impacts to the system associated with that would affect the ecology of it. With the construction of the house and the site preparation work. Only exception to that which is being discussed by the engineer is the, you know, the balancing of cuts and fills where there's a proposal to remove some fill from part of the floodplain areas part of a balance. But I don't believe that would have a significant ecological impact on the ecosystem there or the species that are that are there. My only recommendation that I provided in there was really to provide exclusion fencing around the areas where there would be construction work. Especially if activity was going to occur during the activity season of the wood turtles, which are state listed species that were noted on the site plans through the NDDB review. That would prevent those animals from moving into any of the areas and potentially being injured or killed. But the real, the real I spent some significant time in the original report I did. Steve Addressing something that to a large extent is actually somewhat beyond the purview of the wetland And that's really the activities, the ongoing activities that will occur within the floodplain area. And the reason I did that is I wanted to get on the record
some recommendations that hopefully the applicants would consider. Steve Sort of best management practices and I presented them in a bit of a hierarchy. So from ideal to, you know, no real disturbance in a floodplain area to Steve You know, other activities that are current, some of which are currently occurring in that floodplain area where there's some mode walkway strips and there's some access areas and in the past. I know there's been some gardening and so forth. Steve And provided recommendations on how to continue with those activities Harper without impacting the wood turtle populations. They're having an inordinate impact on the Steve Ecosystem functions, but from a regulatory standpoint as far as how the wetland commission could act on that. That's where the challenge becomes because it really they don't really have a physical they don't really change the physical characteristics or have a an impact on the wetland per se. So I was wrestling with how to best present that and I chose to present it in that first report. If this was a larger subdivision, it could easily be dealt with through planning and zoning and conservation easement areas and recommendations. But this is not so I offer those up really as an opportunity to for the for the applicant to consider uses of that floodplain area associated with the parcel. If that makes sense to everybody.
The Commission have any questions or response to Mr. Greer's comment? Okay hearing none, does either the applicant or their representative engineer Bushnell wish to provide any additional information about the application for the commission to consider? And engineer Bushnell, you are muted. Sorry.
Just to be clear, Brandon Hanfield's last memo was was dated what? August.
It was August 31. Oh, okay. I don't have a It wasn't it's it's not posted. I got it really late today.
Oh, okay. Alright. Okay. Okay. Can you email that to me and I can post it? Did you email it to me? Yeah. Email it to the commission.
I'm gonna open this at the risk of is this it? Yeah. It's it.
Okay. So it is in mister Hanfield's opinion, the proposed plan will not result in adverse or significant impacts to inland lands or watercourses. From the engineering perspective, he does not expect, significant impacts. Perfect. You're welcome. I'm assuming you don't disagree. No. No.
I believe the applicants are on the line. Do they wanna add anything further or address mister Gruner's comments or anything of that nature before the Commission proceeds there? It is not required. No, we don't have anything else to add Megan.
I will open the floor back up to discussion by the Commission then and if there's no discussion we'll move on to entertaining a vote if someone wishes to make one. Not hearing any discussion. Would anyone like to make a motion?
Yeah. Halsey. I could move to approve the application of William and Donna Phillips referencing the most current map Plan which is appears to be revised through 08/12. Is that correct, engineer Bushnell? Yes. Thank you.
I'm sorry it's dated fiveonetwenty twenty revised through eighttwelvetwenty twenty.
Do I have a second for the motion? It's Smith seconds. Okay. The motions made by Commissioner Hallisey, seconded by Commissioner Smith. As presented, referencing updated May first and August 20. And I open the floor just Okay. Hearing none, I will ask a question of agent Wagner. Do you have any special permit conditions that you would recommend the commission consider for this application? No.
Megan, this is Linda. Is this motion include just regular conditions?
Policy, would you like to respond to that? Standard conditions?
Conditions, yes. Also, Lyndon, can you read me the data on the plan that you referenced?
I cannot see it, I don't have it. I think it's this one.
Okay, it's fiveone, I thought I said, I think I might've said fivetwelve when I made the motion. The date on the plan is, original date is 05/01. You had the right dates, Jim. It okay. I'm sorry. Propose that the standard conditions be attached. Be part of the motion. Part of the approval.
I'm just flipping back to mister wonder if I can find it. Mr. Gruener's recommendations regarding exclusion fencing and timing of the activities. I would also recommend that the motion restricts the permit to a two year duration. Any additional comments, discussion, questions? Linda, do I need to formally motion to revise the motion to include the two things I noted? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So I will motion to revise Commissioner Hallisey's original motion to include a permit duration of two years and the recommendations of Mr. Gruner regarding the timing of activities and exclusion fencing around.
I will second the motion to amend the primary motion.
Vice Chairman, any discussion? Okay, hearing none, I'm gonna call for a motion to amend the motion. So we'll do roll call. Vice Chairman Elliott. I vote aye. Thank you. Commissioner Hallisey. Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye.
Chairman Molley votes aye as well. So the motion to amend the primary motion carries five zero zero. So back to the primary motion. Any additional discussion before we vote? Okay. Hearing none, I will do a roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott? Aye. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
Commissioner Smith? Aye. And Vice Chairman Lally votes aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. The application is approved with the standard and special conditions noted. Agent Wagner, can you please work with, the building department to issue the public notice and to draft the permit? Okay.
Alright. I believe that concludes the special meeting. So, as a reminder, our next meeting is Tuesday, September 15. I am not sure. I was trying to share meetings with someone and don't go by the town calendar online. I the last time I checked, it wasn't accurate. So I'm expecting to meet Tuesday, September 15 at 7PM. That's what I had on the master calendar due to the Labor Day holiday. Hopefully, everyone has it on their calendars. And with that, I will entertain well, I'm sorry, I should back up. So I apologize. I offered the previous applicant a chance to ask questions before we moved on. Do the applicant or engineer Bushnell have any questions or comments before we conclude their item? I don't hear any. I'm not sure if engineer Bushnell is on the line, but, agent Wagner, if you can make sure to follow-up directly with him and the applicants regarding the application.
Okay.
So with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn.
Motion to adjourn made by Vice Chairman Elliott at 08:18. Any second? Seconded
Commissioner Hallisey. We'll do a roll call vote. Vice Chairman Elliott? Aye. Commissioner Halicy? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
Commissioner Smith? Aye. And Chairman Lele votes aye as well. So the motion carries five zero zero. The meeting is adjourned at 08:18PM. Not at all.
Linda do you have everything you need for the minutes? Hope so. I
just want to make a note that I don't think the community room is the best place to Zoom from. I learned
No kidding. A lot of your conversation was really garbled.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. I apologize. The alternative is a house with a two and a five year old crying on me. So I'll look for option c. Not specific