Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
August 15, 2022 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I'm a little nervous. This is the first time. Yep.
So the next question is, do you know how to let somebody share their screen?
I think so. Okay, very good. I have some backup if I needed. Very good.
And I only got a tutorial today, so if I don't do a good job, it's only a reflection on Eric's teaching skill.
That'd be Eric Anderson, not Eric Lapetska. Hi, Kevin. Hi, Anne. Hey, Jed.
How are you? Good. Thank you. Hi, Keith. Hello. Hi, Hank. Thanks for joining us tonight.
Just as a point of information, I'm not sure who will be writing the minutes, transcribing minutes from the tape. People are aware of that. Okay,
well if all else fails, you will be, Jim, so. Yeah, I'm saying it might be nice if people mention their names or something. Okay, yep, very good.
Something like that. I did speak to Chris Bell and I anticipate that he'll be on the screen at some point. That
would be good. I was, there we go. Okay. I see Leanne signing in now. It is 07:00, and I'll call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Next up on the agenda is the seating of alternates. And I see Anne Cremay, Scott. Leanne, are you with us here yet? Yes.
And Steve Nelson said he would not be here. And so First up to be seated is Kevin. And Kevin, I don't recall, we are going to vote again tonight on the opting out of the accessory dwelling unit regulations from Public Act 2,129. And have you attended enough of those that you feel comfortable acting on that? I know we talked about it several times, but you'd missed a couple.
Yeah, I was gonna say I missed a couple sessions. And if you don't Yeah,
don't say that I feel 100% comfortable on it. Okay. Anne Blanchard,
have you set in on enough of those that you would be comfortable acting on that? No, unfortunately, don't either. I was out last month when I think we talked about it quite a bit. Okay,
so in that case, Kevin, I am going to seat you. When we get to that point, you can abstain if you so choose and we'll go that way. But Kevin, you're the next step to be seated as an alternate. So you are seated for Steve Nelson tonight. Very good.
Next up on the agenda is additions or changes to the agenda. And as I think I emailed out to everybody over the weekend here, I would like to add a new business item 5A, which is a proposed driveway change to the Pine Ridge subdivision. Are there any other changes to the agenda that anybody thinks might be necessary?
Jed, this is Leanne. I'd like to add, unless you think we can do it under reports or something, an update on what we can do about a request for extending the 40 mile an hour speed limit down to the Lake Road regarding the Dollar General Application. As you all probably know, there's been a serious accident there just since our last meeting. So I'd like to discuss under some category the notion that we've talked about several times about applying for an extension to the existing 40 mile an hour speed limit to the middle of town.
Okay, Leanne, I'd like to do that under item seven, discussion on the agenda. We'll put you first on the list there. Okay.
Commissioner Larson, I do have the request from Mr. Grimaldi for the dissolution of Rosewood Estates. In addition to taking action on that, he had expressed an interest in getting some input on future development of the site from the commission. And I'm wondering if that could just be added, taken up at time.
We will take that up at that time. I thought, when I was looking through, I thought we kind of covered that a little bit at the last meeting, but we can certainly do it again to see if we have, if anybody else has any thoughts for Mr. Grimaldi there. But we'll do that when we get to his item on the agenda. Thank you. So with that, there's only, I'll make a motion to add item 5A driveway change the Pine Ridge subdivision to the agenda. Can I have a second to that? I'll second it. Okay, thank you, Anne. And with that, any other discussion on the changes to the agenda? Hearing none, a call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. Kevin? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion to change the agenda passes five zero zero. Next up is public speak. Anybody from the public here wanna talk about any of the issues that are not on the agenda tonight?
I'd like to, I sent you a letter from the RTC and the DTC asking you to reconsider something on the 15 feet side of the road for signs because there are a lot of signs that are on the road that have been there all year long. They're the I love teachers and that and you had trees cut down or you had your roof done or whatever. And they're all within the right next to the road where we're being told we have to put ours 15 feet back and we want a little leeway because some people don't have that because of bushes and trees. They just have a driveway and then that's it.
Understand. I did send the letter out to the commission and I plan on addressing that on item nine of our agenda, which is correspondence.
Okay. I know you, I can't do anything more from that. I just wanted to make sure that you knew they all knew that we're concerned because I know the law changed that we can put them up earlier. Yes. And we have the rules that we have to have them down within one week after the election, where there is no other peak. Everybody else has these up all the time, long time, the little flags or something that has welcome or something, or like I said, the wood or your kid graduated or somebody had a birthday and they put them up, but they don't necessarily always take them down right away. And we've always known even when we had the limit of only putting signs up one month prior to an election or referendum, we had to have them down within one week after that was no and ifs or buts. And I think the town of Andover, the RTC and DTC have always followed that. But two years ago, we were trying to put signs up for the presidents and stuff. And that's when all those signs about the COVID was really up. And it was changed a little bit that we could put our signs up too because there are so many of them. Well, there's still up and we're trying to inform people who to vote for. I'll address that when we get to correspondence. Okay, I'm gonna sign off because you
guys have all the business to do. I thank you for listening.
Okay, thank you, Carol. Thank you. Other public comment before we start? Okay, moving on to new business. First item up is five A, discuss driveway change for the Pine Ridge Subdivision. And Eric, can you lead us through what it is that you're wanting to do?
Yeah. So I am in the process of trying to sign in through my computer. And if you'll bear with me for a minute, I'll be on in just a few and I can share my screen and we can look at plans together. But I think I can start with a little bit of background. Can you guys hear me? Can everybody hear me fine? Yep. Okay, thank you. Know, we're an approved, myself and my brother-in-law George, have an approved subdivision application. If you saw the latest, version of the plans that were submitted and recorded as MYLARs, What you would see are two lots. They're located between Pine Ridge Drive and Old Farms off of Hendy Road. My wife and my property ended up, you know, maintaining the address that the whole lot had. It was 14 acres and it was 26 Old Farms Road. My brother-in-law George, he his lot ended up being the other one, and the driveway entering from his side of the property, which was new, you know, this was actually exist an existing lot with a plan and even a partially constructed driveway from from Old Farms Road. He was going to, you know, his driveway plan was to enter from Pine Ridge,
new entrance that was not constructed and also not part of any prior plan. So what that plan would have reflected as far as utilities being introduced onto both properties was basically coming off of Pine Ridge. It would have gone there would have been a transformer located on my brother in law's side of the property, the Pine Pine Ridge property, and then an extension going from his transformer out to our property. At the time that we had gotten approval for the plans and everything like that, we were already in discussion with Eversource about the plan to bring utilities in. We had we had basically been discussing, we have some email correspondence with them, even going going back to the time that like
prior to the subdivision plan, resubdivision plan getting approved, where we were showing them, alright, like we're we're bringing utilities from Old Farms, or rather from Pine Ridge, and it will go over to the Old Farms property as well. Some of this is just my frustration that you might pick up on. But we had presented this to them and even went so far as to, like, kind of give us a little bit of a blessing, if not, like, you know, we weren't at the point where they were doing real engineering plans, but we were trying to look for, like, a blessing because we were doing work on the driveway on the other side. And if they were going to require anything on the old farm side with respect to the introduction of the utilities. Like, we wanted to know because we were doing driveway work, drainage, and then bringing in gravel and and packing it down and everything like that. And if we were gonna do we we were gonna need to do some utilities work. We wanted them to to give us an idea of that as early as possible. So we hadn't gotten anything from them, any indication that coming from Pine Ridge was going to be problematic. Not that is not until a couple of months ago, I wanna say June of this year, that their engineer basically said to us that like they're they were getting cold feet about coming from the other side. The main reason being that there was no
there was no driveway that they would be able to, like, pull one of their utility trucks onto to access underground utilities if they needed to to dig or excavate or whatever they would need to do with the underground line and the conduit that goes that the the primaries would run through. And then it became a little bit more. They became a little bit more direct about it. They said without a driveway surface over here. The only way that we think the the only way that we're gonna be comfortable bringing electricity onto the property is coming from old farms. So you know, having we really didn't like contemplate that scenario that much at any point until they started saying, alright, let's this is where we want it to come to come from. Because it ensures that there's a surface that our truck will that will be maintained, utilized, and that our truck will be able to access. But once we started surveying the work that would be required, we could immediately tell that we were going to be running into boulders and slate alongside the shared portion of the driveway that's already shared with the property owners on the old farm side. At one of the meetings, I think where we did the public hearing, they were on and they were making it known that just really want to make sure that their driveway, if it's damaged, gets replaced.
We're pretty confident that going alongside their driveway, would just be putting a trench in beside it. There would just be a really high probability that we're going to damage their driveway and probably several parts of it, and we'd be forced to have to repair that. But also in terms of impact, the trench that would run along that driveway would require us to take down, I'm gonna say about 20 trees, and then maybe upwards of half of them are actually in the upland review area of the wetlands. Side, driveway over on the old farm side. And and like I said, we'd be, you know, we'd be encountering ledge and and large boulders and things like that. It would just be a really, really expensive undertaking and one that has, I think, a lot of impact because of tree removal. So I asked the engineer who was on-site with me if if it was possible to put a driveway in that the town would approve of, certainly would get, you know, you have have an agreement between myself and my brother-in-law about about utilizing the other driveway, but the idea is can we extend a driveway off of his from Pine Ridge and and then run the utilities adjacent to that driveway. And there, you can see the drawing here. Thank you, Jim, for pulling this thing up. I'm still I am still on my phone. But what has been added to the last draft, the last version, the approved version of the
subdivision plan here is in pink. I think that's representing an area that we would need a utility easement. I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to zoom in a little bit to refresh my memory because the plan isn't in front of me on my computer. But we would need we would need a utility easement. We would need a mutual driveway easement, all of which I'm quite confident that we could get drawn up and recorded to construct the driveway where you know we're passing through an area that is not. There's no wetlands or upland review area. We would probably need to do some grading, a little bit of grading to comply with slope regulations. And then we'd certainly have like the turnouts that were necessary. And if you compare the impact of putting the driveway in the utility trench in on this side to what we would have to do on the other side, the impact is just pales in comparison. We're talking about a couple of removing maybe a couple of trees. No more than 10 I think to get this to get this driveway in, but probably probably more like five at the most. And then it would it would go up into the area as you see the red lines kind of indicating where the where the driveway would go
and then a more of a dash line beside it to show the utility trench. So I have I purposefully waited a while until I heard back from from the engineer at Eversource and presented him with a sketch of exactly what you're looking at here and said, if this is if this is in, would you approve of the utility plan to to bring them in from Pine Ridge? And and he did say, yes. Would. So so that's the background in the story. And I I mean, the green lines, I didn't mention them specifically, but green lines have been overlaid since the the Mylar version that's behind it to show to show the grading. And I I don't know. I don't think I'm leaving anything out here, but you know anything that's not in color on this plan is something that is on a mylar that's recorded in town and was part of the prior approval.
Okay. Anything else, Eric?
No. I think that is it for now. Yeah, I think I I think that's it for now. I mean, I'm obviously available for questions here. Okay.
Jim, do you have anything, about this application you'd like to brief the commission on? Yeah, I do. I thought Eric did a pretty good job explaining it. Just want point out that the purple, I'm calling it purple, Eric called it pink. Reason that shaped that is it allows for grading as well as the easement, just in case anybody was wondering. I also want to point out that there is a turnout on the driveway about halfway through between lot between the houses turn around for vehicle traffic, vehicular traffic on that driveway. And that's about it.
Okay. So, Eric, I'm assuming that there's no changes from what we had approved on the initial driveway that was coming through the wetlands and going to your brother in law's house?
So yeah, there's no changes to that. It is actually, for the most part, constructed. Might put a finishing material over the top of it if we decided it was worth it, But at this point, I think we might be pulling the plug on working on it anymore. But I just I don't intend to deconstruct anything that's there.
Okay. And I know you said that you would do whatever grading is required, and that's to keep it below the 10% so you don't have to pave it, to pave the driveway extension. Yeah, that's correct.
Have we had the fire marshal review or go out and look at the proposal for the new plan. And my concern is it looks like it would make a, at least from the plan we had before, it would be a fairly sharp turn when you get to your house up there to, you know, intersect with the old driveway going into the garage. And I just want to make sure that you know the fire marshal's satisfied that he can get all his equipment in there and and get turned around and get out.
I did not have the fire marshal review this plan.
Okay, think that's a requirement that we do, and I think that. Is something that. You know, the applicant probably wants to just to make sure that he's for his safety. Anything over 400.
I believe the regulation says it needs a turnaround. I don't know. Yeah. It's all I did. It's a fire fire apparatus turnaround. Right, I'm saying it doesn't need a review.
Has to show up. Well, if I look at section 4.9.4 Bravo, it requires a written report as to keep the rear lots from the fire marshal as to the feasibility of ready access to the proposed dwelling for emergency vehicles and equipment. Okay, I can take care of that. Yep, so I would like to get that done. And it does require, as you said, the turnaround, that was Article 4.16 I, I believe. Just one of the things that Eric probably doesn't make much difference with respect to the driveway, but it was unusual to me that on the lot where George is building his house, it says the utility easement is for your lot. And on your side of the property line is where it says the utility easement is for George's lot. And I know somebody tried to explain that to me once before and it didn't take and.
I think it's the utility company just has some requirements for the the width of these easements. Probably because it also grants them the ability to, like, travel over the the driveway service or something like that. But. The where the util you know, the utility trench goes, you need a cert they they probably require a certain width. So and it and it must have exceeded the the width of the the property going down that little branch over there. So both ways like he needed. He needed an easement or I I needed a record an easement on my property for him to be able to have utilities go through this area, And likewise, I will need one for him to have my utilities travel through his area. Okay.
Okay? Do any of the other Commission members have any questions for the applicant?
I do, Eric. The other grading, was that grading the same as for the last time we approved the application? Are
you are you talking about the grading on the other? Yeah, the the pink or purple whatever it is. Was that the same grading that was for the first approval?
Yeah, I mean if it's not. If it's not in color, I mean that's that's what was on the first approval. What I'm trying to think about here, Scott, is we have that wetlands crossing and there is grading work going into the wetlands area and then coming back out of it. So I think if you look at that through there a little bit, Andrew Bushnell, our engineer, is showing the proposed grading. Right? So I think the dotted lines are the one what was there. And then there are some other lines that are really close to the pointer just to the left that are that's showing the the grading work that is being done to come out of the wetlands area. Right. See that? And then the green light The green is all the proposed grading. The green probably extends out of that a little bit. But the green is the new grading relative to what was approved. So the pink
or purple was on the last application also, or is this new grading?
The green is yeah. The green is new grading. The pink was not on the drawing, but it's, you know, it's not a it's grading item, right?
Yeah, that was just to indicate your utility easement, nothing with respect to grading. Isn't that correct, Eric? That's correct, yeah.
Okay, up near your stockpile for your house, Eric, I checked the grade up there, it's going to be around 15%. Right right by that stockpile area. That's right. Do you guys realize that it's gonna be 15? Yeah, so right.
We yeah, mean we we know that area quite well. There is. What this what the subdivision plan had on it and what you see on the the side, in fact, right where the cursor is right now. Right? So there are some, like, there are some changes with respect to, like, where the house is going to end up in the direction that it's going to face. And that area in there is getting graded a little bit for where the house is going to end up. There are things that were not in like, our conceptual subdivision plan, but they are going to be in, like, the building permit application and in on an as built. I can kinda describe what's happening here. That driveway would go literally right where it is, right by that stockpile. But the orientation of the house is actually parallel with those two basically, like those two driveway lines, the ones that are coming in from that's coming in from Old Farms and the one that's going up from from Pine Ridge. So the proposed house is kind of like turned
this way and moved up to the to where the driveway lines are.
So you twisted it like it looks like 45 degrees or something? Yeah, 90 degrees almost. 90? Yeah. Yeah.
Actually yeah it's kind of old. Still anything you know anything over 10 I think has to be paved.
Yeah, absolutely. We would There is like another grading plan that's getting submitted with the building permit application that'll show what's going on there.
There is a note on the original plan indicating that any driveway surface in excess of 10 would be paved.
Okay so and how are you getting the utilities across the easement? I know it's going to be underground and then through the wetland area where they're to be down in the. Is it going to be in the wetlands or is it going to be supported in some manner or? No, it won't be through wetlands.
Oh, I'm sorry, down on the other side by Pine Pine Ridge, right. Yeah. In the wetlands area, how's go it through there?
Was, you know, So Eversource dictated what to do there. We thought we were gonna go through the crossing that was being constructed. They requested it go that it goes outside of the crossing. So it is going if you're facing the property from the cul de sac, it's going just beside the crossing that's being constructed, but on the left side of it in in the ground.
So it's gonna be in the ground, whatever, four feet down through the wetlands? Yeah. Yep.
All right, and another question, what's gonna happen to the old driveway?
Yeah, I mean, I was kind of mentioning that earlier. I'm just I don't exactly have a plan. I mean, there's an easement up there to use the leg of the driveway that's not really on the on the drawing here. We've pretty much built this thing. And I just you know, there's stabilization mat in it and layers of gravel and stuff. It's a it's a finished surface and graded properly, you know, so that we're within we're within the tolerances. I don't intend to deconstruct it. It's just it is what it is for now, and I I imagine we would probably not use it that much because it's a
steeper entrance. We would probably prefer to enter the property from from Pine Ridge.
Is Eric going to have to go back to utilities through the wetlands again?
It should have been part of the original review. I can clarify that.
I don't think we ever we ever went over that.
Yes, don't recall any discussions about that. I know we had the minor modification where we replaced the box culvert with a three sided culvert. Right.
But I didn't recall any discussion on either commission of doing something different with utilities, routing them through the wetlands there?
No, because with the electrical, electrical was always going to come in from old farms, so it never came up.
Scott, the plan was always to bring them from, and I bet you there's a line on here from the original approved plan that shows the utility coming in from Pine Ridge. But what might be different is I think we were kind of expecting to run it through the crossing area and Eversource
dictated that it should not do that. They really pushed you in a corner there.
Yeah. I mean, I'm gonna I I guess I'm here again because I'm in a corner with them. But Right.
Yeah, so on the original drawings, it shows your proposed underground utilities in there and I can't, I can't, looks like it was just to the right of the driveway portion on the last.
So I would think that that might need a wetlands review. If we're doing something different there.
It was on the print. They must have approved it at one time, right? Yeah. Oh, we did,
was approved for the utilities to go through. I think, know, the plan that we had was for the utilities to go, you know, run down the side of the driveway.
Right, yeah. I remember something that was going to be hung or something, maybe, I don't know.
Well, I know back at that time we weren't convinced whether or not the utilities were going to be underground or, you know, strung on power poles. And so
Yeah. That's So I I think we we expected them to be underground by the time they got to the crossing, but it wasn't clear how many poles they would they might want us to put off the street. I think early on, were they were saying at least one and now they've gotten now they decided we can just run it down the pole that's there so it would go directly underground from the pole that's out by the street.
Okay. Any other questions, Scott? No. Any other commissioners have any other questions? No questions here. Okay.
Eric, I know you're already a little frustrated, you know, with this, the way this is going out. I'm I'm curious if we don't act on this until the next meeting. Or after we get the the wetlands vote. How big a detriment?
To you is that, I mean, that's that's kind of what I budgeted for was, you know, presenting this here and then. You know, I guess I'm always planning for like not not having all the information that everybody's looking to have until we get some questions here. If we wait for the next meeting before we act today, I think that's okay. Susie? The next meeting, Jed? Our next meeting is? I mean the wetlands meeting. The
next wetlands meeting is September 12, I think. It's the second Tuesday because the first Monday is Labor Day. And so September 13.
Yeah. September 11, mean, twelfth, I think you were right.
Well, the twelfth is a Monday, and that'll be the Board of Selectmen meeting. So we put the Inland Wetlands on the second Tuesday if there's a holiday on the first Monday. So it'll be September 13. I think that's going to be the date.
I think that's kind of a holdover from when meetings used to be live in the community room.
I don't know. All I know is that's the date of it, that when we put out our calendar for the year at the start of the year. That's where that's at. So you can check with Agent Wagner, I'm pretty convinced it's at September 13. That's what's on the calendar, the town calendar.
In fact, you know, I'd already emailed George I'm going be out of town that particular day, and so I was asking him to find an alternate that could sit in for that meeting. But the the thing that. Say again?
Do we need? We need this. Him to come back? Do we have any problems with this?
I think when we don't have the wetlands resolved, there's three or four things that I think we need on the drawing that was presented there that would make it, you know, we could vote to make them conditions of approval, or we could have it come back. But I'm looking for the wetlands understanding of how the utilities are gonna be routed. I'd like to see a comment that the driveway would be graded to maintain less than 10 degrees. On the new drawing that you gave us, Eric, it didn't have a revision update on it, which should be whatever the date, you know, of the drawing is that we act upon.
And then I looked through all the old stuff we had on this application, and I never saw a drawing that showed the change to the three sided culvert versus the four sided box culvert. And so when I look at the drawing here, it still references, I think, the four sided box culvert, which is no longer the case. Now those are all pretty straight, oh, and the fire marshal review. And again, you talked about that 90 degree turn when it intersects the driveway up by your house. I just want to make sure that the fire marshal is is satisfied, and he's got a turnaround area or or he can do his things there.
Just just want to address one one of those issues. Was putting together a draft motion. I did realize there was no updated revision date on the plan. I spoke to Eric, who in turn spoke to the engineer who added it. It just came in after posting I the had two other Yep, go ahead, Jim. Issues that I arose that have in the draft motion, I realize I understand you're not taking up the seating, but nonetheless, I thought I mentioned them. One is I just wanted to see where the power transitions from overhead to underground, because that's not shown on the plan, and that the street number be
addressed, meaning that if both houses are served off Pine Ridge, they should have Pine Ridge Street addresses. I wanted to put it in there just so it's not lost somewhere.
Okay. So with all those issues, somebody could make a motion that we approve the change with all of those things or we could have Eric come back. I don't know if the wetlands can get through it that fast. I know for whatever reason, and I don't understand the background behind it, wetlands normally gets an application and then they wait till the next meeting. So, you know, my concern there on Eric's behalf would be that, you know, they'll go to the meeting in September and don't act on it for fifteen days and then we're into the October timeframe.
Would be good if he could get his digging done right now.
Yes, it would be. Now's the ideal time. And maybe if you go, I'm not sure, that's a matter for Chairman Elliott and Agent Wagner to go through. But I think that if we were to act on this at our September meeting, which is the week after, six days after the wetlands, we would be good to go and support Eric if he's got the rest of that stuff done at that point.
He could dig most of the trenches, right? Right now. Right. As long as he stays out of the wetlands in the review?
Well, he would be able to dig most of the trenches as long as as long as we would approve the plan for the driveway, I guess, tonight. Because I think the driveway, Eric, wouldn't the driveway and the trench be going in at the same time? Isn't that one action? Yes.
Is there is there a crossing in the driveway in yet?
Construction has begun. There is a the concrete culvert is there and some of the walls that sort of that contain the fill that's gonna go inside of them. They're kind of like half constructed. He's going from Pine Ridge and working across.
So hearing nobody making a motion to act on it tonight, I would say that we would put off acting on the application until our next meeting, which would be September 19.
Myself, I'm okay with having a motion now to have him do what he can. I'm just not sure how to phrase the motion.
I do have a draft motion. It does not include fire marshal review, nor there was a comment about pavement, a notation about pavement. But if you can hear it tonight, I'd be happy to read it or wasn't it it didn't appear. It was posted, but I believe it can't be read. It just did not come up on the screen. Go ahead, Jim.
Okay. Application is George Carrera, Eric Bladesco at 26 Old Farms Road. Move to approve a modification of the subdivisionspecial permit for two lot subdivision with a common drive, approved by way of the commission on 07/19/2021, and filed as maps eleven thirty four through eleven thirty nine in our land records, accordance with review, with a revised plan dated eightfifteentwenty two, following conditions. One, a revised map showing proposed changes and conditions to be approved and filed in the land records. Two, such mileage shall be revised prior to endorsement so as to depict transition from overhead to underground electrical utilities. Three, the street address of Lot 1 be modified to reflect the revision. Or a revised driveway agent be provided by the applicant to be filed to reflect the revision. Each one shall be filed in the land records along with the revised Mylar. Again, that does not include fire marshal contingent upon fire marshal approval of the turnaround. I wasn't quite clear on the pavement. I assume the pavement notation spoke to paving it
when it exceeded 10%, but I wasn't entirely clear about that. Okay. But you could add that condition of approval that will be greeted to maintain a slope less than 10%? Yes.
And you could add a condition of approval subject to fire marshal inspection and satisfactory report? Fire Marshal review, right?
Well, if you look at our regulations, requires a written report as to each rear lot. So we need something in writing from the fire marshal that he is satisfied.
Right. I'm gonna say report as opposed to an inspection. To me, indicates that that would be after the fact. Review is the term I'm using.
I'm still confused on the difference here. We want to hear back from the Fire Marshal that he agrees with the plan. Okay. And I think, you know, that condition would allow the applicant the opportunity to start doing an awful lot of work. He's just got to, before all is said and done, he's got to take into account whatever the fire marshal says he needs to do, which I'm sure he's ready to do.
Subject to fire marshal approval. I was staying away from the term inspection because that implied that he would look at it after the installation. Oh yeah, nope, I want that
discussion you know, before it gets built up there. And
driveway shall be graded driveway slope shall not exceed 10%? Is that 10 degrees. Yeah. Okay. And wetlands approval? Yes.
Well, I'm not sure that this application The applicant is going to need to go to Wetlands to get permission to dig the trench through what's already approved. This here doesn't really affect where the wetlands are. This is all outside of the wetlands, so we can approve this. He just needs to go back to wetlands to get permission to change the plan from whatever he had before to digging a ditch through the wetlands now. And as you say, now's a good time to go dig a ditch. So we can have that be a separate issue. We just need to follow it through to completion to make sure that it gets done.
I'm not Can I just chime in on the wetlands here? I did finally get my computer going, I'm staring at this plant a little more closely. I mean, the plan reflects the utilities outside of the footprint of the crossing as if I'm seeing it correctly. There is a passageway that the driveway is represented with, and then there's a line ashed with an e on it. And it's outside of the footprint of the crossing. And you shared that with us, Eric?
Yeah. Jim, you've gotta allow me to to share a screen. Mark, Jim.
I think it will be the arrow above the share screen green button. There will be some options up there. Or Okay. Hold on. Yeah. You're sharing, Jim.
Well, actually, mean, Jim, if in you want on the the driveway, where it enters from Pine Ridge. You wanna share a different plan. Am I correct? Nope. Nope. This plan this plan has it on it, which I can I mean, I can pull up the older one to prove to prove that it's I'm referring to something old on the map? But if you zoom in on the crossing right in that area where the yeah. I think this is best I can do.
Okay. Jim, it actually might be on the participants. You might actually have likes. Oh, there you go.
I think it was just very slow and now it's it's repopulating. We're gonna move that print a little bit.
I'm not sure where I can go from here to
I've the approved the plan from the approved application. Right? I can share that rather than this if you can figure out how let me share. Okay. Hold on one second.
Nope. I think I can do it now. Yes. So this is the plan 10/21/2021. We made some revisions after conditions of approval. I believe the dotted line with the e here is for utilities. So if you follow this line in, this is the edge of the crossing that would get constructed elevating the driveway area up just above the you know, about five feet above the bottom of the the wetland area, and the dotted line with the e is outside of that as it goes through. You go to sheet four of that, Eric. Sure.
Good idea. So I guess here's that line. And then ease outside of it. I mean, I'm not, mistaking the timeline of things with us and what we were thinking was going to happen. I mean Right.
Eric, it shows right here that coming off a pole, the Yeah right right here. Yeah.
Yeah that's the easement power easement. John looks like it was approved.
Well okay so let's let's go to drawing six now. So, this looks to me like the e line goes across the bridge.
Well, it's it's not a it's not a bridge here. It's just going underneath, you know, underground underneath the driveway surface through here, a little trench.
Okay, well, I would still ask you Eric to get with agent Wagner and you figure out if we're good to go based on on this drawing versus what you want to do. Okay. So, I know Anne was willing to make a motion. Still willing to make a motion? Yes. And I think Agent Halsey read the proposed motion. We added a couple of things there. Anybody
want to second that motion? I'll second it. Okay. And Jim, can you read through the motion again one more time so we know what it is we're acting on?
Move to approve a modification to the subdivisionspecial permit for a two lot subdivision with a common drive approved by way of on 07/19/2021, and filed as maps November through November of the end of our land records, in accordance with the revised plan dated eightfifteentwenty two with the following conditions. One, a revised map showing proposed changes and conditions of approval will filed in the land records. Two, such mylar be revised prior to endorsement so as to transition from overhead to underhead electric utilities. Three, the street address of Lot 1 be modified to reflect the revision. Four, a revised driveway easement shall be provided by the applicant to reflect the revision. Easement shall be filed in lane records along the revised Mylar. Five, fire marshals shall let me start that over. The approval shall be contingent upon fire marshal review and approval. And six, notation shall be added to state that pavement will be graded to no greater than 10 degrees.
That's the motion. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne. Aye. Kevin. Aye.
And I vote aye as well. The motion passes 500. And I think you're done, Eric. At least here.
Thank you very much, guys. Certainly follow-up here and get everything done over the course of the next thirty days, and we'll reach out to Joe for the utilities going through the wetlands. Really appreciate it guys, thank you. Okay, yeah. Thanks, Eric. You're welcome. Take care.
Next item up is old business six a request for dissolution of the previously approved Rosewood Acres subdivision located on Route 6 Route 87 Lynntholmes Corner. And I'd be happy to introduce this. Okay. Yep. Go ahead, Jim. And I think Kevin was not here when we showed the drawing the last time. So if we can either allow Keith to display that or you display that, we'll look at that as we talk about what we're trying to do.
Okay. Sorry, I'm having trouble calling it up. Will get to that in a minute.
Keith, are you ready to display that if we give you share screen? I don't know how to do that, actually. Okay. Good. Yep.
I'm new I'm kinda new to Zoom. So I I did supply all the drawings to Jim and I figured that out. So
Yeah, hold on. All right. I'm gonna have that section help here. I I was just gonna do a little background on on the request here. This property, Rosewood Acres, is situated at the Corner Route 6, Route 87 back in 02/12 or thereabouts. It was approved as a I believe it was a 10 lot subdivision, several of which were Commercial and remaining lots were were residential and the applicant. As.
Okay, while you are working on that, is there anybody on the commission that did not see Keith Grimaldi's letter to agent Hallisey? It's not a very long letter. I can read through it. You'll get the idea quickly if you're not familiar with it. I can't remember if I sent this out or you had to go to the website and get it. I will take all that silence as the Commission is familiar with the letter. Jim,
I guess secure from trying to find the drawing. I don't know that it has that much to do with what we will be discussing with regards to this
anyhow. I lost the internet. I don't know when. Can you hear me now? I can. I'm not sure that we're recording anything now. It says recording still. It does say recording. Okay. Yeah. Good question though.
Anyhow, just talk to us, Jim, about what your thoughts on the application or the letter are.
Well, I'm simply sort of bringing up the date. Far as future development, I know there's, you know, there is some commercially zoned property there, and it also, I believe, is eligible. It falls in the area that would be covered under the floating zone section 26, I believe. So there's a lot of flexibility what could happen there. And Mr. Grimaldi was feedback. I know there was discussion about the need for affordable housing and potential use for this. Believe at the last meeting or prior to that, he was looking for a little input as to whether you were looking for, whether the commission, here's where it gets tricky, the town is looking for, or versus what the commission is looking for,
might be two different things. The question was, are we talking multifamily, talking rental? Any guidance on that matter? Still with me? Yep. All right.
So, as I recall, you know, we've got a section that was added to our plan of conservation development, and it's also, as Jim mentioned, there's some words in our regs that talk about this particular piece of property as being suited for a higher density housing And I think that if we were to be able to figure out how to go about getting somebody excited about building some affordable workplace senior housing in that area, that would be great. I think the commercial lots would, you if you were to, you'd have to start someplace, but let's say that we could get a plan that would get some higher density housing built in there, there's got to be all kinds of things you could do with those commercial lots that would make it conducive to
the people living next to them to walk over and do whatever business would be there. I think that's very consistent with our affordable housing plan, our plan of conservation development, our incentive housing zones, all that stuff. So I think what you're trying to do is a good deal for the town. When I initially started talking to Jim about this, if it were, you know, a lot of times people combine two lots and it never comes to the commission. One of the things that we talked about when we were putting the gazebos into the network, the property out on Route 6, said the Commission may by resolution permit the zoning enforcement officer to authorize minor non substantial deviations from the approved special permit. But substantial changes to special exemptions, special permits shall be treated as new applications for approval and shall be submitted and acted on in accordance with these regulations. And so I think that this is not a minor, non substantial deviation. I think it probably is. Guess What I what I don't recall, I I recall your your drawing, Keith, and I recall your letter. I don't see anything that's an application there.
No, is it okay if I speak? Yes, go ahead. Okay, so basically, Jim has been very, very helpful in trying to get me to, you know, the point where I'm trying to direct what I, you know, want to place the land and then look at the possibilities going forward. So the first and foremost is dissolve the subdivision that's currently on the piece because it's not viable. Remove all of the restrictions that were placed on that subdivision going forward and being developed, and I'm basically bringing me back to zero, bringing me back to a raw piece of land that then I can now step back and think about in concert with the town planning and zoning. Jim has made it clear that just because planning and zoning and myself may think something is good for the town that doesn't mean the town thinks it's good. But something that's viable for the town, and that would be received well by the town, mixed use, you know, some light Route 6 is, you know, even though it's a quieter area, it's still a commercial spot. So you do a little light commercial, whether it's a Starbucks or a couple of offices or something that can service the houses behind it, like you just said, Commissioner. And then I'm open to, you know, I wasn't planning on developing this now. I thought it was just gonna be a dead deal.
But there's a chance that given a, you know, a new climate in in building and and and so on and so forth that if we work together, maybe I can present something to the area that would be successful. It's not about what I wanna build. It's not about maybe what you guys want to build. It's like what's going to really be advantageous. Is it affordable housing? But what does that mean? I'm not affordable housing to me used to mean $200,000 homes. Now with given the the the building climate, as everybody knows, affordable housing is like $2.75 for a for a small, you know, a small unit. That's just the the reality of of what it costs to build. So does that mean rental? Does that mean owner occupied? Does it mean mixed use? I need to know what, or I'd like to know what is acceptable to the town in a mixed use environment, and that's on a this is on an informal basis. I'm not telling you to give me a plan. I'm just saying what do we think would be successful in this area. It's a very popular spot for for the town of Andover and going through and going to Yukon or going wherever. So there there there are some options. It's just that, you know, I'm not from down there. I'm trying to get the, you know, trying to get the pulse of what's of what's going on down there, what would be acceptable,
because I don't wanna overreach. The last time I went through this whole process, it took me two years to get an approval for a plan that inevitably turned out to be not viable. The board is not the same, the people are not the same, the today's climate socioeconomically is not the same. So I don't want to be an adversary. I want to be, you know, I'm trying to make some money, trying to provide something, you know, a possible plan that works for everybody. So that's why I'm asking for the input of the people that are that live there and deal with this every day. So essentially, I am going back to, I wanna bring this back to just a bare lot of 59 acres and then like start and then move forward. That's what my plan is.
So would that involve a combination of the ARD, the rural district and the business district? I don't know whether you said you had some commercial lots. Don't know if they're business or industrial or would you want to They keep those
changed the zoning on my piece to be mixed use residential light commercial, which to me means like, retail, you know, office, coffee shop, whatever. That's the new r the, you know, the R 60 zoning on there. And on top of the fact that it it reduces my lot size. So if I put in a road, do I do lollipops for residential? Do I do a front? It's at obviously the front frontage on Route 6, and I have a DOT cut that sits on that property on Route 6. So I have an ingress egress through Lindholm's Corner, which is private, and then also on Route 6. I also have an 87 DOT cut, which was not popular at all that they approved with the residents in that area, nor was my subdivision for that matter after so much. But anyway, I'm not really married to that anyway. The sight lines just barely made it, but yes, the state gave it to me, but I I would relinquish that. I don't really think I need to be there because the majority of the wetlands on that property are running up and down 87 where where I where I abut Columbia. So I would prefer to stay away from controversial things and go to what's I got plenty of land there to work with. You know? So
I so so I didn't come prepared to address, you know, in detail, probably the detail that you're looking for. I'd have to go back and review through the mixed use regs. You know, we've not done anything with mixed use so far with the floating zone. I would say that I think what you're trying to do is consistent with the direction housing is going today. It's probably not as strongly built as our affordable housing plan worded it in the plan of conservation and development, which is ten years old. We're just getting ready to start doing, working on the next one coming out in 2025. But I think, and I will give the other commissioners an opportunity to talk in just a minute here, but
I think, you know, it sounds like you're looking for the win win answer that's good for the town, good for you, and, you know, the town means both the town organization and the town people. And I think there's a lot of stuff out there that goes into that. And I am personally in favor of all that stuff. And so at this point, I'll let other people give their 2¢ on that whoever wants to. Anybody else? Also in favor of it.
I think it's got some good possibilities. And this fall, I understand that UConn has got a class of students that's going to be working with us and helping to come up with some plans for the town and future development. And maybe they can have some ideas also about this area on Route 6.
That's a great idea, yeah. I know we're trying to give them the freedom to go out and see what it is that needs to be done, but if we were to float this idea by them and say this would really help the town, that might be one that we could guide them towards.
Right, you would have to give them a copy of our regulations.
Yep, and they should, you have, they've got the plan of conservation development, they've got the affordable housing plan, you know, the incentive housing plan which specifically addresses this area is on the website there in our regulations and so forth.
When we were making those new regulations, I think that this parcel came up as a good candidate for cluster housing, I thought.
Right. And then just to go back, know, on affordable housing, what does that mean? And that means that you can have, I think it's 70% of the housing at market rate, which is whatever you want to go. And I think it's 30% that have to be affordable. And that's, you know, 80% of the median income, you know, is what you were saying about, you know, $2.75 might even be up to 300,000 now with the way inflation's going out there. So, but I think there's a lot of people that are looking for smaller lots, smaller houses I think Andover needs that, so.
Commissioner, does that include, I'm not sure if you addressed that, maybe I missed it, but can you do mixed ownership and rental on the same subdivision? Is that included under the regs for affordable housing? And would you want that or no?
I, at this point, not smart enough on there. We put together a plan. It's been fairly, you know, we haven't gotten well downrange on that plan yet, but it does give us an awful lot of flexibility to do different things. The only one that I am familiar with is a division that's being looked at in Colchester. And I saw the public notice in the newspaper that said we're building this subdivision, there's going be this many units designated affordable. If you think you meet the income requirements, call this person and we'll start taking applications. So that was all for sale. The rental ones, you know, think you're getting into the quasi public agencies kind of like, you know, what's the name of Riverview and they manage those for you and they would be the developer come in as a public entity and develop it to rent it out with some assistance and that sort of thing. So I don't think you mix those two together. I think it could be either or. I think you've got enough land there that you could have some of each, but whatever chunk is going to go, it's going to go either, you know, rental through some organization or private sale with a given number of those being designated affordable.
Yeah, Jim and I had a discussion at length about what the optics and psychology might be behind trying to mix. Renters with owners. And this is just again off the cuff, off the record or whatever. But the owners might not want to be around renters because of a preconceived notion that, well, they're not gonna take care of their property because we are. So I wouldn't wanna put myself behind the eight ball already in the beginning by trying to, you know, throw something out there or market something that that's that's already 50% on a losing side. You know what I mean? So we
I would recommend that you get a hold of know, find the next step would be to find a developer who does this sort of thing and get their input.
But I don't Well, I'm reaching out to them. Would be the developer. But again, essentially, just not to I'm trying to go backwards here a little bit. But obviously, the first step here is to to get to move forward with what Jim proposed to you on my behalf, which is to strip this back to a piece of raw land so then I I can just bring ideas to you and I'm not beholden to what this past. Yeah. You know, approval is is is back because there's so many conditions on this piece of land that that don't matter anymore, but I want it to be that going forward, I'm not going to stumble on something that might have been left behind to to to bring you a new you know, project, I guess you could say. So that's that's the whole idea. And again, we're we're going through this, and if I have to come to three meetings in a row to say in front of you actually, I'm not coming in. Are we ever gonna get back to in person or what? So how like how do I show a plan? I'm not, you know, I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to hire some the guy before me so he can show the plans.
If we get a plan, we'll put it online in between Jim and I will figure out how to. Yeah, so I mean, essentially,
I want to start from scratch again and then if I have to go to two, three meetings in a row and say look at I came up with this idea I came up with this idea. What do we think I don't want to spend 75 to $80,000
for every engineering plan that's gonna get shot down. Want to be I want to work in concert with you guys, you know, so Jim Jim Halsey is there a like a date for when wetlands have to be re redone? Could he use his old wetlands map for that?
I believe five years is the Yeah. I'm done there. Five years,
I believe, I is the have topographies. I've got soils. I've got well placements. I've got all that. So that means none of that's not any good anymore. But you know what? To be honest with you, that was six, seven, eight, nine acre lots. So now we're going to be going to maybe lollipops cluster like Scott said. So it's going to have to all be redone anyway. And I wanna it it would have to be fresh and because why would we wanna start with a plan that relies on something from ten years ago that says, oh, well, maybe the land shifter. You know what I mean? It should probably just be all brand new. You can probably start your plan with the old wetlands information. Yeah. Because it's gonna be close. That's
probably not changed, but you know, I mean, again, the property is known. Obviously as you guys know that it was an old gravel pit so it's great that a lot of the natural resources I need to develop the thing and to to to do roads and stuff is already there So that that's kind of that's kind of good to know. The elevations haven't changed, you know, so there there's some starting stuff that's still safe, you know.
Okay, Jim, is it? So my thoughts are that we should get, you know, an application form filled in is trivial as that might seem. I know you had some discussions with Keith about, you know, an A2 plan that shows you the outline and he expressed a concern about he didn't want to spend a lot of money and I understand that until he has a feeling that they were all kind of in favor of it. Have not heard any of the Commissioners voice anything that that sounds like it's a concern with what you're looking at, Keith. And so I'm thinking you fill out this five minute form with Jim, we look at it at the next meeting, we should be able to vote with a condition of approval that you do the A2 plan that shows what you've got and we get rid of all those previous conditions of approval, Jim's gone through and said, yeah, none of them are really, you know, there's nothing in there that is gonna be hurt by going back to one big lot and we could be done at the next meeting. That sounds great. I didn't ask
Mr. Gimaldi for an application because I didn't see it as a I didn't think our existing application addressed dissolution, but there's no reason it couldn't be used. It might not.
I was still wrestling with the issue, Jim, of why does it need to come to the Commission? And and it was a, you know, it was an approved subdivision before. This is how you modify it. This is certainly a big modification to that original subdivision. And so that's the cleanest way to have an application in Yeah. It sounds pretty simple.
Yeah. By my way of thinking, yeah, it is the cleanest way. And I'd be asking you to sign it as chairman, Jed. Okay. For you to do that, obviously, you'd need the commission approval. But I did it administratively. I'm not suggesting, you know, it has no Could But that's show up in the land records, you know. No, it doesn't. I'm trying to clean it up. You had said if substantial, it something to that effect. So that's why I'm suggesting the route that I am.
Okay, well maybe you and I need to talk offline here and we'll look at, it would seem that Mr. Grimaldi would sign the application, not me, but.
No, I'm saying the plan, not the application. Absolutely. Ultimately, he's looking for a mylar in the land. Yeah, I got you. Shows this as one parcel of land. Yes. That's his goal. And I would be the guy to sign that. Yes. Yeah, that's all I'm saying. Yes. Okay.
Commissioner, can I ask you another question? So do you is there online? Do you have you you mentioned a couple of times about your there's is there actually affordable housing? Like not on requirements, statutes, what are like, how would I go about that? Because you said that that would the town would look favorably upon that. Is there a somewhere I go to look to see Yep. And then Jim can
get you there if Okay. So there's, we had a public meeting where I presented the plan, gave a PowerPoint presentation, talked about it for thirty, forty minutes. And then there's also the written plan itself, which I think is very readable and that's online. You can take a look at and I think in there you'll see that your property is specifically addressed as one of the opportunities that the town has.
Would would that be considered again on the favorable side a mixed use scenario where you have affordable housing and then some nice, you know, light commercial in the front on the road frontage?
I, I would have to go do a little more homework before I could address that issue and specifically look at our mixed use regulation. Okay. I'm not that familiar with it because we haven't had to deal with it yet. Okay, so and I'll one more question I'll ask once again just to reiterate.
So if I came up with an idea for a mixed use affordable housing light commercial and came in front of the and put myself on the agenda and said before I again spend you know $80 $100,000 in engineering a plan, how does this seem that it might be looked upon by the board? I mean, is that something you guys can comment on or am I not? It is. Very
much. In fact, that's the way our process is supposed to work. You tell us what you'd like to do. We give you some thoughts. And guide us. And you get with an engineer and he drafts up
the big plan and we start because you know how much the engineering costs are in these things. It's like, I would not want to come in with a buy us with a plan that's not viable and then you know you just. Yep,
and that would give us the opportunity to study up on that mixed use section of our regs before you came to talk to us. We're all a little smarter on it. Okay, great. That works out good. Okay. All right. Are we good? I think that does us for tonight there.
Okay. Jim, I will reach out to you and we'll do what we have to do paper wise. I everybody on the board for listening and we'll probably be be working together some more. Thank you, Keith. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Next item up on the agenda is the gravel pit restoration plan. And I got a letter today that probably, well, I think Jim, can you get me to share my screen and I can even post this thing up here? Because that's the one that's Yes.
Okay, so here's what we got from Agent Wagner, who in concert with Chairman Elliot, came to our sidewalk and essentially says that based on the presentation of the sidewalk restoration plan submitted by Chris Bell, it is appropriate for the site conditions and that the wetlands will be adequately protected by the restoration plans. Enough of a buffer between the disturbed area of the gravel pit and the wetlands and the soils at the site drain well enough so that any runoff should infiltrate long before it reaches any wetlands. Chairman Elliot also would like to comment that the original topography of the site resulted in runoff towards the wetland.
The restoration plan therefore doesn't result in any additional runoff. And in fact, because the slope is reduced, the soil is so permeable, runoff will probably be substantially reduced. So that was the wetlands input that we had gotten. Which I guess is good for addressing the thoughts of wetlands. I was hoping for a little insight into how to slope the property with respect to the neighbor Ms. Hutchinson's desires. But that didn't touch on that. So I guess we're on our own a little bit. I think it is safe to say that and I'll give Ms. Hutchinson the opportunity to tell me if I'm wrong, her position since we've started discussions has been that she thinks that we should have no runoff from this property onto her property, regardless of whether or not we had runoff in the past. Is that essentially your understanding, Ms. Hutchinson? I think I'm probably muting her.
Well, see that she is muted, but most other folks are too. Can you unmute her, Jim? Yeah, think it has something to do with the ship. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Mr. Chairman, may I speak? Certainly.
Okay. This is Chris Bell representing the applicant as engineer. I took into account everyone's concern Hey, Larry. At the field meeting. And I briefly, just before this meeting, changed in the plan to address those concerns. We we don't the the owner doesn't care how it's graded as long as he can get it restored. Yep. So he said, you know, grade it to what people would want to have, and so I made up a plan to, well, Mr. Chairman, as we were leaving, you said, well, know, Chris, you can grade it flat, or you can put a, grade it towards the middle like a basin. That would both be acceptable. So what I did is make a plan before I show it here. I'm just making high points where before I was sloping towards I have kept it. The left and right, I made a high point and basically made the center of the property, instead of a high point I made it a low point, and so I'm kind of sloping everything towards the middle, which basically gives me a big giant detention area. And what I will do is make the berm that's on the left side towards the auto parts, I'll make that a little bit lower so in case by chance we get, you know, a deluge that's, you know, a five hundred year storm, any water would go towards the left, towards the auto parts and grade down, you know, eventually go towards the river, which it does now. And if I have your permission, I can put that plan up and we can take a look at it. Wonderful,
please do. Okay. Oh, where are we?
While he's putting it up, I think I'm unmuted now. Is that correct? Yep, I can hear you. Yep. Okay. How do I get to it? I don't know.
This doesn't look familiar. There should be, along the bottom of your screen when you move the mouse, where it says mute, stop video, and all that, something in green that says share screen. Yeah, I hit that, but
trying to I hit files, but I don't get anything here. Let me try this again. I cannot start Oh. Go.
I can't start the share screen while another participant is sharing. Hold on one second, please. Chris, can you try again?
I'm trying to get to my file. I don't know how to get to it. It's not
as easy as it was last time. As far as I can tell, you should be able to share as you retrieve it. There we go. Can we see that?
Well, you need to I can see restoration plan 81522, but you need to click on it to call it up maybe. Open it up. Yeah. I did.
Okay, nope, we're not seeing it. How about if I try it?
Try it again. Well, you don't have it. Yeah, you're right, okay. Just, because I just made it. Yeah, so. I forgot.
Got it yet, no? I think you need to have that plan open, Chris, before you share your screen.
Really? Okay. Last time I just went to the file. Okay. Yep. I Open the plan and share the screen.
Okay. Oh, I I see what you're saying. Now I have to get back to you.
See it now? Oh, yeah. Now we're getting close. If you could blow it up just a little bit, that would be helpful.
Participants can now see your screen. Okay. Alright. How's that?
It would be even better if it was bigger, but we can do I
don't know if my screen can get any bigger. Okay. Well Just just take that window and drag it to the top of the There. Take the whole Adobe window and just drag it to the top of the screen. It'll snap the full size. Yeah. That's good.
I can't seem to get get it much bigger here.
I think we can do with what you got there now, Chris. What was that? Yep. Yep. Okay.
Basically, what I did is where this was the high point and I went either side of it. I made this a low point. And let me get there we go. And I and this is basically a a high point across here and a high point across here. This still gets filled in, that's the basin, and basically I'm coming in at 96, about where elevation 96 was and is, you know, I can't fill towards the right of these spot shots because that's filling into the floodplain. So basically this whole area, I'm going to make 296, which it is about now, and it is about that here. I think I gotta build this up a little bit here. It's around nine two ninety five, I guess, and I'll make this a low point. And what'll happen is and the same thing from the road here. Well, this whole area, I probably should have put a big circle about, will be a pond area, okay, it'll be low, it'll be depressed, and that's for the water that flows directly on it. So anything from this point to the right is going to stay at the same elevation as it is now and never was before. But as we proceed to the left, it's gonna the elevation is gonna go down and come back up, and then I'll make this side a little bit lower, a couple of tenths lower than this side. So in case this big giant area of pond, which is only gonna be six inches, six, eight inches deep, it'll be bigger or about the same size as this area here. I went through some quick calculations, and this was around 500 cubic feet, and this is like about four ninety plus cubic feet. You know, it's about the same.
And if the water ever gets above this berm here, it'll go towards the right, and then as you can see, the way the contours are, it'll hit elevation. Around here is 294 where the benchmark is, that's at grade, and go down to 290, and it heads towards the river in this direction. It heads all the way down towards the river. This 294 is the flood elevation. It's not an elevation that's out there now. That's the flood elevation. So this prevents all the water that currently could go towards the right. It's it's gonna drive it to the left. But I I can't fill across the access road to make it go all the way over from the edge of the property because I'd be I can't fill into a floodplain. This is Elevation 290, and the flood is 294. That that would be against the law to fill the access driveway I can't grade it towards the back because this whole area is a couple of feet higher than 296. It's actually up two ninety eight to, you know, up up to 300 through here. So this this is the nesting area, which this has been all restored, just waiting for the shrubs. And this whole area is all restored except for the top zone there. So this is all final grade. We can basically hone this out a little bit here to make sure it flows
into the low point where that's grassed right now. Not much grass here right now. So this would just probably be the best for everybody's concern, and it doesn't really affect the property owner because whoever gets the property or the future developer will have a grading plan that is going to have a lot of asphalt in it probably, and we'll have to get to catch basins and then go to a boil water separator and then into a detention area, so that'll all have to be designed later. But at this point, all the water will be basically retained on-site,
unless it gets to like, you know, way beyond a one hundred year storm or five hundred year storm, and, you know, the ground is frozen and everything else. But, you know, basically it's all going to stay on this property, and anything that runs off will go towards the left. So that's basically it. And, of course, all the other notes are still here. This conveyance channel is already filled in because it's not being used anymore. The level spreader is projected to remain because it's basically just some rocks on the ground pressed into the soil. And, you know, you have to go there and actually find it there because it's all covered with pretty heavy growth right now. The pipe will be taken out. The truck turnout area will stay because that's just a little bit of grading there, and the tension pond will get filled in. And anti trackpad will remain, which it should for any, again, it's just stone on the ground, and pine trees will get planted. And the construction fence that's across over the security gate is it's up to the owner if he wants to keep it up. He'll probably keep it up. I wanna leave it as his option to just control the site so people don't come driving in, and actually it should have it. So, know, bikers are,
you know, doom bug not doom buggies, but, you know, riders, motorcyclists, and don't come in four wheelers to disrupt the property. He plans to put some barriers across all this entrance so nobody can get in once this is all restored. So then he can take the fence down. But that's basically it.
Okay. Hank Gruner, you've sat through an awful lot of meeting here tonight and I appreciate that. Based on your participation in the sidewalk and in what you've heard tonight, do you have any thoughts for us?
Can you hear me? Yes. No. I don't see any concerns. You know, know the all of the back areas remaining as it is, know, except for the shrubs going in. So, that's not a problem.
Okay, very good. Might not be appropriate, but let me ask Ms. Hutchinson what you think. Okay, am I successfully unmuted? You bet. Okay,
good. Toward the front, it says proposed low point down there. And then you show a 298 and a 295. What about from there to the road? I'm looking for the 298.
I'm sorry. 296 on the second set of arrows up. Yeah. Yeah. On the proposed. Okay. It's 296 there. I'm referring to, excuse me, between there and the road. In other words, your proposed low point line kind of ends. Right. And what about
can see And the then it's 296 down here near the road. What what happens here where it ends? You see the three arrows, like one to the left, one to the right, and then one below? Yes. Well, that's the intention, the end of the berm, like there'll be an end, and the water will basically, the intention is is from that arrow that's in the middle as it goes towards the bottom of the page that, it it burns up to 96. You know, the proposed low point is like $2.95 and a half, all the way to the back, all the way to the front, and then it ends, and then we go back up to two ninety six so that all the water is there. It ends, you know, like in a pond there, like opposite where the Now are you referring to the berm as the mound of soil that's already there? No. No. That that whole area has to get regraded. That's that material That's why bought. Yeah. A joint agreement with What training
what is that then? What is what are you proposing? Because that's higher
now. That's about twenty two ninety six. That's about 20 feet higher. That's why I hatched that area. You see the hatched area? That's the area that's remained that hasn't been touched. That's like original grade. That's way up in the air. We have to use that material to do the grading for the rest of the property because it's, as we head back from Station 2 as it goes to the back, there's all kinds of bumps and low points there, especially right along the silt fence. There's a hole there which shouldn't be there. Is that gonna be filled, Chris? Yeah. That's that's it's gotta get graded back up to be above the floodplain. It's like it's at the floodplain now, and it should have been a foot. The intention is to be at least a foot above the floodplain and more for the property.
And if I make it flat across, I'm not going to get a foot above the floodplain. If I berm it this way, I should have no problem being a foot above the floodplain everywhere, if not more. The idea is to get more than that, and I wanna make sure there's enough material to do that. And that whole hatched area, yeah, that's all got to come down to the grades, as I'm saying, you know, two ninety six or higher, and then have that grade down to the upper part of the drawing, down to the low point. So there's not going be any water heading towards the road, except for what's there now by the access, the old access area that's right here. This grate over here, this hasn't changed right here in this area. That's all original. But it starts picking up very quickly as we come up here. This is up to elevation, oh, three ten probably, if not more, I think. But you're removing that. Correct? Yeah, it is about three, let's see, 10. Eight. Maybe three zero six. He's removing that. Yeah. I'm sorry? Yeah, removing that hatched area. Well, yeah, this is still raw up here. We stopped him from grading because I said, Hey, we're gonna run out of material to finish this job. Once I took some shots out of him, I said, You know, we gotta
grade this properly. So so this all this material is gonna get pulled down and be nice and flat and then go down in this direction, proceed to be, you know, like a bottom of a pond and, you know, be like a little depression right along this whole area here. Oops. Sorry.
I guess my question is is that does that extend down to the area close to Route 6? Because it right now, it says 296.
Yeah. Well, this elevation right here is two 92. Yeah. That's two 94. That is 296 right there, this contour. So 9 296 goes right through here. It's right here. So this is 298, 300, 302. So this is about six feet higher than what we want. We're gonna level this off to 296 right here. To what level?
296. Right there. See that? Okay. That all that's a proposed elevation. It's 296 here. We're gonna bring this down from 302 to 296, and then head down to two ninety five and A Half, and this will be all low. So, you know, there's you know, the same grade that's here now is is gonna stay there. This this this whole area has not been touched, but this you know, we're gonna be at 294, 292 here, so from here back, we're gonna start grading it down to 296 and then down to 295AndAHalf. Same with over here, it's gonna get graded down, and everything will be towards this low point.
Wherever you're next my question. In other words, the lower your low point is going to continue beyond where you have it now.
Well, yeah, maybe to the tip of this arrow, you know, it's like, it's going from two ninety six to two ninety five to here. So, you know, it's going to be gradual,
you know. But it's only two and ninety five point eight, so it's gonna just go slightly down, Chris. Right? Well, here's 2 195.5.
This is 295.8. The intention to lower this is that Right. If if this overfills, it's gonna go that way. Okay? It's gonna head that way. If this overfills here, it's gonna go that way. It's gonna go that way. If this overfills, it's not gonna go this way. It can't go towards the road because this is lower here. Gravity is gonna go in the downhill, so it's gonna go that way. What's
going to keep it from that two ninety six level flowing to the right toward my land? 296.
Yeah. Two ninety six will be all along here, two ninety five and a half here, and then lower than two ninety six here. So if the water builds up
and wants to go that way, it can't because it's gonna go that So water goes downhill. It's gonna go that way. I I understand that. But my point being is you show the majority of that area as being at 296 as opposed to going down where the arrow pointed toward the river that you your proposed low point of under two ninety six isn't indicated.
I have no idea what you just said. Well I don't understand what you're saying. Okay.
Let me take a shot here. So over on the left hand side of the drawing, the highest elevation I see is 295.8. Yeah,
correct. On the right hand side, I see an elevation line of 296. So the left hand is a little bit lower than that right hand, which is what we were asking for. And so it should not ever go over and start flowing down towards your property, Ms. Hutchinson, because it will, prior to getting up to two ninety six, flow over the 295.8 on the left hand side and go down towards
the river on the Extramarc side of the property. My concern being the piece that between there and the road, it's going to be at 296. So the water isn't going to be able to flow in that direction. Which direction? Where is the water going to flow that lands on that area to the left? That area. Oh, there you actually put another arrow
180 degrees so it'll go that way because that's where it's naturally going now. And, you know, we're not gonna touch this. It's like once we get to 296, we're gonna go that way. We're gonna go towards the back. So whatever tiny bit is here, it's gonna stay that way. And yeah, it's gonna go towards the road, which the way it goes now. And all this water from this entire area is gonna be detained here, and if anything goes anywhere, it's gonna go to the left. It's not gonna go towards the road. This whole area drains to the left, not towards the road. And the the part that drains towards the road now, the small tiny area that remains, well, you know, it's it's it doesn't actually drain towards the it drains that way, but then it eventually just runs down this way and goes along the property line and out like the way it does now.
But that's just this little tiny area. I I can't build this up because it's in a floodplain. I can't build this up to make it go that way because that's filling in a floodplain. I can't do that. So it's gotta remain where it is.
What is the level, excuse me, between the end and the road right in through there? This is right now,
this is 30230298296, 294, 292, and then it goes up. As it goes up to the road, the road is up here at, around, it shows to be 2 92, but, actually, it's a lot higher than that.
This this contour is in that direction. What is the level as you go Southeast? What's that? What's the level as you go along Route 6 to the Southeast? The most I go what? Elevation.
Elevation. Well, all these are in all these elevations are two ninety two, two ninety, and it drops to two eighty eight, and these are all in the floodplain. This is all in the floodplain right now, and it's gonna stay that way. We only added this area here so we could get off the road because we couldn't put the access here. We the town orders to put it here, and so we had to fill a little bit in order to get in and and down. Had to make a ramp here. And they're not gonna allow the entrance to stay here, so that's the entrance has to stay there, which it's gonna be there. But since we lowered this area a little bit, because if we put fill in a floodplain, we have to take some out. So we took this area out
to balance that. And actually, it's a little bit more taken out of here, so there's no violation. If you want to pay Paul, you got to rob Peter. Like, you got to add some here, you got to take some out. That's okay to do that.
Do any of the other commission members have any questions or comments on the plan? Mr. Chairman, I have another comment. Okay.
To do with the level spreader and the swale. Perhaps mister Hallisey could help out Sure. And have to go with the approval of the plan and the conditions of the original plan.
Okay, going back to the original, well, the approval process, that level spreader was shown over the building line, the building setback line. And it was asked that it be moved to the left. And it was. But one of the conditions of approval was that that level spreader, the orientation of it be tilted 20 degrees to the left, 20 degrees counterclockwise, with the intent that any water coming out of it would be directed more directly to the rear of the property, towards the river. And it appears that it was not done on the plant. Assume it had been done before. Was done on the final plant.
Did Not Yeah. The one that's on file with the town.
I I rotated it. I I know I did that before I, you know, filed the Mylar. And John, John checked that.
I I know I wrote it. Copy of the mile that's been filed, and it's not rotated.
I could go find that if you wanna see the
I mean, it certainly appeared from I mean, Katherine and I met today and looked at these sort of the chronology of plans. And was one, I believe, May from March and then another one in May. Mhmm. And from what I could tell, it had not been actually rotated.
The one in May was not. No. That's correct. The one in May was not. The one on June 3 was. The approval was on June 3. I mean, I could pull up the old drawing. If you can't If want to rotate it more, it's gonna go into the access drive, which doesn't make sense. What
what I'm trying to understand the concern about the level spreader because I think it's just it's just stones on the ground at this point, is it not? Right. And so, Miss Hutchinson, I'm just trying to understand what the concern is with the level spreader at this point.
The retention pond or the sediment pond and the pipe are being removed. Yep. So there's no need for this. However, in the future, someone coming along is going to say, oh, the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission approved this plan. Find out in front of me showing this level spreader placed here. I understand. Okay. So we're going to utilize it. So what can Mr. Bell? Can you simply do what you did with regard to the sediment pond and the pipe and simply say it will be removed and then or or rotate it to 20 degrees because you can see the swale that's shown on here also is directed toward my property. I can't rotate it anymore because it's going to go into the access room. I already rotated it once already.
And I don't know what the concern is about the levels. I mean, we could run it over at the bulldozer and really sink it into the ground and then you'll never see it. And know,
hold on just minute, Chris, I understand the issue now. And so I think if you can't see micers are moving, only I can see that. But if you were to rotate the bottom 15 degrees so that the level spreader was shown Miss Hutchinson's concern is that the next person comes in here is that okay, so that level spreader was good. We're just going to make it there and it flows water down to her property. Need to somehow remember the next hold on a minute Chris, We need to somehow make a note to the file or something for the next time somebody comes in here that I think Ms. Hutchinson's concern, and I know she'll hold us to it, is that it go more, I'm going to say, directly north south compared to this so that it doesn't flow towards her property at all. And And if you were to rotate the bottom and extend that pipe in length a little bit, you could do that and not have it access your road on there. What you don't understand is we're taking the pipe out, not rotating I the do understand that. Ms. Hutchinson's concern is for the next guy, it's going say planning and zoning approved this picture.
We're going to do exactly that again.
And why aren't you going to approve it this time? Why don't we just remove saying that the level spread is not approved for future development. That might be a solution. Could That's just a note. As far as I'm concerned,
Scott was alluding to, we could remove it from the picture because really all it is is it's it's rocks on the bottom. It's not functioning as a level It's gone. And so somebody else would have to come in and with the new drawing, not
not look at that at all. Remove it from the print or remove it from in the field
or both. Both. Yeah. Yeah. I I I don't see the need to remove it in the field. It's just it's a waste of time and effort. It's just stones on the ground. It's and reconstructing it is a waste of time. I mean, you could just say, the level spreader is abandoned and can't be reused. I mean, And that's, I mean, you have the power to say that. You have the power to say that.
And But simply, if you said they exist, in other words, just like you did for the sediment pond and the pipe, that will be removed. And I don't care if it the dirt. The pilestone stays there, but it's off the map, and somebody can't say in the same with the swale and the swale will be removed, and that would keep me happy with regard to that. Just take a just like you did for the other two remove them. Take them off the map by saying the existing whatever will be removed.
Okay. And that would entail filing a mylar of the approved restoration plan, I assume.
I am under you know, we've got a note there. If we and this goes back to a final condition plan that shows the final conditions, we could have the final conditions plan, not show the dimension basin, not show the pike, not show the water Exactly. That shows now we're down to where we are for our desired end state.
Exactly. Just like an as built for a house, Jed. Yep, yep. And
the swale too, although I do say this particular one, he has said the existing swale shall be filled at the end of the project.
Yes. And then after it's all done, he can go out there, get all of those elevations, take that off the print, take the pipe out?
Yes, our final picture should not show the pipe or the basin or the level spreader.
Or the swale. We have to do an as built, that's required by the approval. I have to do, you know, surveyed asphalt of all the elevations to prove that we graded it properly and that everything is planted. And that, you know, that's after the fall after we have everything in. Yeah, we just include that on the asphalt, say that everything is gone.
And I can say that I have learned a lot by going through this process, and I am confident that when somebody comes in to develop this property, Ms. Hutchinson's going to be there making sure that we get that level spreader in the right direction.
I would mean I would think that she will. Well
then, I agree with Scott and the chair. Let's take it off here. In other words, say it Okay. It shall it shall what you've already said the existing swale shall be filled. So Yep. That if you simply take off the spreader. And the pipe. And yeah. And the pipe. Yeah. And the
well, pipe he says the pipe and the and the Yep. And the basement. Yeah. All this grading is gonna be gone. All these, you know Nope. I got you, Gracie. Grading's gone, and you can have an as built plan that just has elevations on it. Exactly. That's it. That's it. It's gonna be one So big flat
can we put, Chris a condition of approval that you will make us a pitcher that doesn't have that detention basin, that pipe or that level spreader on it?
Or the swale. That's the svelte. Yeah. I have to do that anyway. Okay.
Sounds good to me. I got it. Okay. I have a question. If I'm reading that correctly, the existing conveyance trench shall be backfilled. That's something different than the swale. And then you say the existing swale shall be filled at the end of the project. That's, I think, no. That was okay because it say it shall be filled at the end of the project. So you're are you indicating, sir, that that means that the plan that will eventually be filed, excuse me, will not show anything along those lines? That's correct.
The the conveyance swell has already been filled. That swell that is the end of the level spreader is just barely there. That will be, you know, we'll make sure we level that up. That's only like about six inches deep, 10 feet wider. So it's like, don't even think you can find it if you go out there, but we'll make sure that's leveled off and great, exceeded and everything else.
So that will all be off the Gone. Yeah. Final Yep. Planted.
Does it say what kind of seed you're gonna put on this?
That's in the, the seeding. I think we had on the detail sheet. You know, it's it's, you know, a lot of a rye seed, but I don't wanna use the same seed mixture somebody used up in here. There was too much rye. I wanna make sure some fescue gets in and some perennial grass. Perennial stuff. Yeah. Absolutely.
We'll make sure of that. Because we wanna make sure we get a good crop of grass in there. I think
I I'm interrupted sorry. Scott, I think I interrupted you. You wanted to say you started to say something about the spreader and the swale.
No. I just wanted to talk about I think it's called conservation mix they put in there. Correct. Yeah.
Well, it's this We're not in a conservation area. I mean, we're gonna try to make sure we get a good seating in there because the lot is gonna get developed. We just wanted to make sure we get a good cover so we don't get any erosion problems. And it looks good. You know, we want the look good too. Looks good. Okay. Anything else, Ms. Hutchinson?
I just want to be sure I'm clear that with regard to the level spreader, you're going to, as a condition of approval, if it gets approved, do what?
Remove, remove. So we're gonna have a list here. The conditions of approval, the final drawing will not show the detention pond, the pipe, the level spreader, the swale, the existing conveyance trench.
And, mister Bell, what is your objection to removing it? The reference to the spreader as you did with the pipe and the sediment pond as well as the swale. Because it's benign. On the sidewalk,
I could not even find the level spreader. You won't find it. It's so heavy, Mr. Currently,
Chen, you sized up very well my concern. If it's shown on the map, somebody's gonna say they approved it, so. Yep.
And we're smarter now. Now understand your concern with that thing. As I say, know you'll help remind me if I were to ever forget. I wouldn't be surprised if I did remind you. Okay, any other commission members have any other comments?
Is Leanne. I have a couple questions. Yep, go ahead Leanne. Just about the use of the term basin. When he started his remarks and then when mister Bell started his remarks, he called this a basin. And then a few minutes ago, you referred to a basin. So my question is, just because we're just seeing this for the first time, the actual basin is not pictured here. Correct? I see where it says proposed low point. So Mr. Bell is stipulating that he's going to do the things that we've covered during his remarks, and that's what he's gonna be evaluated on, but we're not seeing
an actual basin right now. Correct? Yeah. I I wouldn't call it a basin. I I guess I was just using my terminology maybe to try to help understand it. You know, it's a it's a depressed area, you know, I'm not making a detention basin, I'm just making a depressed area. You know, that's the basin that we're all talking about the sediment basin. That's the one that you know, the big giant hole in the ground that's out there now, you know, that's going get filled and that's that was a designed basin. This is just a depressed area. Maybe that's could be it could be a swale instead of a. Well, no, no, because it's not going anywhere. It's not a swale. Low depressed area. What I was looking to see.
I know you had mentioned that just before we left to Mr. Chairman I so I, you know, took that as after I thought about the you know that's probably the best idea. When it comes down to it because it makes sure I have enough grade to do this with okay, by making the low points and the high points. You know, I think it answers everybody's concerns. Else, Leanne?
Okay, yeah. So, we're now calling it a depressed area or depressed low area, and that's what's going to be graded accordingly going forward, correct? Yes. And just one other comment, Mr. Bell. When you started speaking, you said something about something closer to Extramart. Was that just a reference point or there any other proposed sloping or grading, you know, much very close to the Extra Mart other than what you've already discussed? What's the Extra Mart? I don't remember saying that.
Extramart? What's that? The gas station next door. Gas station. Oh,
no. The water actually degrades if you look at the contours, they they grade towards the auto place in the back. I mean, you know, that that's where the grading goes now from station, one fifty as it heads towards the back. That's the way it grades now. We don't really grade towards the gas station except for what's there now. I mean, we're gonna meet the grade right at the property line, basically. And we're not gonna disturb the shrubs there. So we're not grading towards that you.
Any other commissioner comments? Hearing none, I would like to make a motion to approve the restoration plan as presented with the condition of approval being that the final picture will not show the existing sediment basin, the pipe, the level spreader, the swale, or the conveyance trench. I'll second that. Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
Do we need any further language since, again, we are just seeing this today and it doesn't show the exact measurements. Do we need any further language about how this is gonna be evaluated after mister Bell has it completed or that he that, you know, that we know what he's gonna do going forward? Because we don't have it on the map exactly.
So we we should good point, Leanne. And we should have Jim, what kind of what who and how often should you and a team whether you know I don't know if anybody Joe has an interest, Hank has an interest, we're all going to rely on you, but you should be out there Whether it's weekly or. Give me some other thing to conduct an inspection to make sure that we're getting what we want and we're not surprised at the end. Okay.
The problem with that is I have no idea how long it's going to take. If I can get an idea from Chris, the time frame for the restoration, I'd be happy to give you a time as to how often it should be field inspections, field meetings.
According to the owner and the contractor, the last time I talked to them, they don't wanna touch this thing probably till mid September, end of sec September to and what we're gonna do is get the grading done except for the topsoil. Because once it's topsoil, you're you're kinda, you know, kinda married to the grade, and, you know, it's it's gonna be costly to to change it. So I'm going to, have it graded minus the topsoil and and shoot some grades out there and make sure, you know, I got what I wanted. And, you know, Jim can come out there and verify that, you know, we're we get what we want, then we add the topsoil, it's, you know, it's gonna be great. So that that was that's my plan. And I plan on watching
them do the grade. So, you know, I'll it's probably only gonna take maybe two or three days to grade this. There's not that much to move. And then, you know, we'll check it, and I'll get back to Jim, and, you know, we'll we'll take a look at it before we topsoil it.
Okay. So let me just throw this out there. Just give me forty eight hours notice. Yeah. And, I could be there on a daily basis if it's a three day project.
Yeah. You know, I mean, they're gonna let me know when they're gonna start, and, you know, I'll long as the weather's good, I'm assuming it's gonna only take a few days and then I'll check it.
That's right. Like, when you're gonna have a transit on-site.
What's that? You'll have a transit on-site and Oh, I got a laser. Yeah. I got a laser. And you'll shoot grades and and give me stakes.
Well, I'll shoot grades. I'll try to put a few stakes in if I can. Know, the the contractor's got a laser. You know, we're we're gonna meet out there before this starts. So he's gotta understand the plan totally, you know, in person, and we'll we'll go with that. And as soon as I'm satisfied with how the grade is, I'll give you a call. We'll take a look at it. Yeah. Yeah. We can do a preconstruction, which would certainly be the first day of work. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I understand. I don't wanna take up more time, you know, travel time. Yeah. You wanna you wanna be there for that? I mean, you can be if you Yeah. Okay. I think that'd be a good idea. Yes. Yep. Okay. Will do. I imagine, you know, we're gonna be there probably a month from now, I guess, I would I would say. Won't be any sooner than that. That's for sure. And, you know, we wanna topsoil on so that by the time we hit late September, we've got, you know, a good grass growing season. We're not dry anymore. We've got some rain coming, and we've a good chance of getting some good vegetation. That's what the thought is right now.
So is the map going to be submitted after tonight showing what was outlined verbally during the meeting tonight? Like what?
Was it dimensions that you talked about for creating this depressed area? It's So a the scale we have now? It's a scale drawing.
On the map. When she goes 50 feet, I can give you an actual physical copy of it, and you can scale off it. I mean, it's the the locations right now are, you know, plus or minus a couple of feet type of thing. You know, the contractor is gonna have a plan that he scales off of. We'll probably when we when we meet him out there, I'll, you know, probably pull a few stakes. Say, you know, this is about where we want elevation 96 and and we'll slope from here, we'll throw some stakes out there. But I don't plan on putting anything more on the plan. You we've got the motion.
Yeah. It's I mean, the aspills is what's required by way of the regulation. Right.
As long as that if that's enough for the record.
Well, I'll send this I'll send this The ash bill will be for the record. Yeah. Right now, you don't have the plan. I have it. So I can email it right after the meeting.
I'm sorry. The the motion to approve, are we referencing a specific revision date? Today's date?
There a today's revision? Today's date on here? June 15, yep. Thank you. I think we have to. Yeah.
Okay, so I will make a motion to amend the motion to include the date of the drawing is today's date and to specify that forty eight hours prior to commencing of grading operations that Chris Bell will notify Jim of the start of the grading. And during the grading process, Agent Halsey will conduct daily inspections of the site with Chris Bell.
Oh, not with me. I won't be there every day. Nope, I can't do that. Okay,
so who will be there? Or I thought you said you were gonna be there throughout the grading Well, I'm gonna be there before he starts for a preconstruction meeting.
And then it's only gonna take like three days to grade it. I can't see standing there watching him grade. It's like trying to watch grass grade. Okay, okay. I don't have the time to do that, Mr. Chairman. I can't be there eight hours I'm a sorry.
So what's your pleasure, Jim, to participate in the pre restoration conference and show it three days later with Chris Bell? Or do you want to come over? And I guess nothing stops you from doing it whenever you want in between.
Yeah, if we nail Chris down for two site visits, beginning and end, would that go? So
the revised motion will be to put the date of the drawing in the motion and to specify that forty eight hours prior to the pre restoration grading event, you'll let Jim know when it is so he can participate in that event with you. And forty eight hours prior to your final inspection, you'll let Jim know so he can participate in the final inspection with you.
Okay. And I mean, that'll be an inspection before topsoil and we get an agreement that, you know, we're we're good on the grades, then we topsoil it, and then we do the topography plan and and get a a final aspen. Yep. And
again, nothing prevents Jim from going over there to do extra checks, but we'll get those two checks in there. In addition, I guess an add that Chris Bell and Jim will do an inspection at final completion.
Yeah. And of course, if Jim runs into a problem, you know, of course, I'll come out there ASAP.
Just can't stay at the No, Chris, I'm hearing two different things. I'm hearing preconstruction and then you would look at it before the council. Am I correct? Correct, with you, yeah. So that's two. Yep. So there would be no final.
Nope, there's gonna be a final. When all is said and done, I want you and Chris to be over there looking at us. Oh, after it's all topsoil, yeah, we'll Okay. And just wanna make it clear that we're up to three now, right? Yep. Well, yeah. Okay. Alright.
I mean, I'll do as good as we need. Preconstruction.
No. Prior okay. Preconstruction, prior to topsoil, and post construction. Yep. Correct. Okay.
And thankfully we've got that all recorded, so I'm sure that motion will get coming out correctly. I'm looking for a second to that amendment to the motion. Second, Ken. Okay. Thanks, Scott. Any discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote on the amendment. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
Kevin? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The amendment passes five-zero-zero. Now any discussion on the motion that includes both removing those five items from the final picture as well as the different inspections that we want to have done? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Ian? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. Kevin? Aye. Can I vote aye as well? The motion passes 500. Thank you, Katherine Hutchinson for your input. Thank you for your flexibility, Chris Bell. Thank you, Commissioners. Appreciate your time.
And I think we've got a good restoration plan and it shows the importance of understanding the concerns so we can properly address them. And thank you, Hank, for staying with us. Maybe he didn't. You're I thank you again for inviting me to speak. Oh, you're welcome. I'm looking for my agenda here. Oh,
what happened there? Okay, you need to stop sharing your screen, Chris.
Okay, thank you. There we go. I was looking for the button. All right, good night.
Next item up is a recommendation from Planning Zoning Commission to hand over Board of Selectmen to opt out of Section three Public Act 21 dash 29 of the Connecticut General Assembly. I'm not sure I spent some time with with trying to get the understanding the know what are sections, what are subsections So the motion will not include that verbiage because I couldn't convince myself that it was right, but that's the next item up. And why are we voting on this again? So the process for opting out of the public act said the notice had to be put in the paper within fifteen days prior to us voting to opt out or make that recommendation. It really, you would think that the recommendation would go in or the notice would go in the paper after the Board of Selectmen acted on it, but that's not the way it's listed in the public act. And so
to prevent anybody from saying our last vote didn't count because we didn't notice it, I wanted to vote again tonight. And Jim is standing by to get the notice out right away this time, because that's the sequence that is listed in the public act to go through the opt out process. And so, we had talked, you know, essentially the purpose of the opting out is the public act requires a person, a homeowner, any homeowner to have as of right the ability to put an accessory dwelling unit. Some of the lots in the Lake District are very small, less than, you know, like an eighth of an acre, and putting an accessory apartment on there is not conducive to maintaining the water quality of Andover Lake. So there was a lot of good stuff in the public act to do with the accessory dwelling units, but I did not think it right that we allow the people in those small lake lots
to be able to put as of right accessory dwelling unit there. Our current regulations require a three acre lot in the Lake District to put an accessory dwelling unit, so we do have the ability to do that. But not for not for everybody. And that doesn't mean we won't change our regulations later to incorporate some of those good things. If we do not opt out by the end of this year, all those rules in the public act go into effect and we have no choice. That's why we are opting out. That's consistent with what our attorney Mark Branch recommends and that's consistent with our affordable housing plan. I will make a motion. To opt out of Public Act 2,129 accessory dwelling unit requirements because the specified right to put an accessory dwelling unit on every building lot is detrimental to the water quality of Andover Lake. Second. Thank you, Leanne. And Kevin, if you got enough that you feel comfortable based on that little discussion and want to vote, you can. If you don't want to vote, you can abstain.
But it's really a pretty simple rationale that we're going through that. So we have a motion. It's seconded. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I will call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. Kevin? Aye.
I vote aye as well. The motion passes five zero zero. Okay, the discussion and this is where I promised Leanne we could discuss the speed limit associated with the area in front of the Dollar General.
Yes. As you know, we've talked about it for the last few months. The 40 mile an hour speed limit through town currently starts around Chatty Mill Road and ends between shortly just after Bunker Hill Road going toward the Jollar General site. So we had agreed that it was probably advisable to see if we could get an extension of that 40 mile an hour zone from the state down through the possibly the Lake Road intersection or very shortly after that. And I think I had asked you Jed, and you said, I think it's in the minutes that it was agreed to, but I think the last time I asked you Jed, you said you wanted to see if there was any mention of it already by the state themselves in the report that they turned in about the curb cut there? Yes. Was
interested and I thought we probably gave the action to find that report to Agent Halsey. I don't know.
I did not recall that. I'm recalling it now that you mentioned it. I'd be happy to take a look at that.
Would be And is it is it finished? Is it available to read and we just haven't read it yet? Or is it not No. Was part of the it
was part of the the application process for the Dollar General Store.
Okay, we have not seen it yet, Leanne. I have not seen any such report. The final, okay.
Okay, that's what I was getting at also because I thought based on your answer, Jed, that you wanted to see if they'd already brought it up. That's correct, yep. Jim, if you have access to that right away, can you
read it and send it to us? Then I guess the next step would be to approach the selectmen. Yeah, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm sorry. There's a traffic study and then there was. Comments made by DOT. So I guess I would need. Both.
Well, know that nothing about the speed limit was mentioned in the traffic study. Right. So what I was hoping was the state would recognize the need to reduce the speed limit and that would be one of the comments that they would make to the traffic study that said, and oh, by the way, we're going to reduce the speed limit until after we get past the intersection with Lake Road headed east. I'll follow-up on that.
And I do think if, you know, if, and I don't do much facebook, but my wife clues me in on all the things going on with the town. And certainly there is a lot of interest in the town on the traffic out there with in the vicinity of the Dollar General and. And after the last accident, you know the Facebook comments were just running crazy.
I wonder if we have the name of that woman from the traffic study. If we could call her. And ask her.
Now I think Jim has a point of contact at the engineering firm. Yeah, I'd call BL.
And we should just go to BL and ask them for it. We do have the person's name, Scott, in one of our meeting minutes, the attendees, where her name is in the one where she briefed the traffic study. And again, there was a lot of questions on Facebook that talked about the engineering firm doing the traffic study coming up with all these bum numbers for accidents and that, and they didn't come up with those numbers. The numbers of accidents are from the state. So if there's any discouragement with you know, the number of accidents seeming low, which it did, the state provided the numbers there. That wasn't something that they did. They just took it right from the state statistics.
So I guess I don't mind. I guess I'm just, is contacting the person who did the traffic study like an extra step in addition to the DOT report?
No, I think the person who did the traffic study should be able to give us the DOT comments. Oh, yeah, I don't know how to get ahold of the DOT and ask them for the comments on it. Maybe Jim Anybody?
Jim, do you have a copy of the DOT comments?
It's on our website. DOT comments? I found that on the website. Under archived applications.
You're looking at our website, Ann? Yeah. Yeah. And the DOT comment letter dated 12/2921. Okay.
So it's just a matter of reading that because I haven't read it since then. I didn't realize it was there. And if so, if it does address this or not. Guessing it's something that I don't know that.
That was a preliminary thing. Know, they said they had questions on the plan. I don't know what feedback BL gave back to the DOT and what the DOT finally concluded. But that was a preliminary letter, and it did not mention reducing the speed limit.
I will follow-up and make sure that we have everything that was all comments, all DOT comments. Okay.
Thank you, Jim. I guess I was under the impression that there was a separate report from DOT that was coming in about the curb cut across from Extramart, and obviously they proceeded anyway. But I thought during the public hearing process that that hadn't come back yet to Dollar General. So that's Jed, that's what I thought you were referencing that maybe we should check to see if they already brought it up on their own. They may be in the state. Yeah. Yes. I do have
some correspondence from DOT on that. They came up with a comment which was vague at best, but they subsequently approved it. Okay,
so it sounds like you know with that. Jim can look to see if there's anything out there that addresses that, but it sounds like the next step will be that. I guess I will talk to Eric and find out the right venue for us to approach the Board of Selectmen with the you know, a recommendation to go to the DOT or. Get their permission for us to go to the DOT. That might be I'll talk to Eric before the next meeting and find out what the pathway is.
Okay, hopefully it's something simple and just in the form of a request from us and just mentioning the things that we mentioned tonight about, you know, we don't see a mention of it yet. There's public concern expressed during the public hearing process. So that part's a matter of record in addition to the other comments like Judd that you mentioned that your wife has come across and things like that. Hopefully it's just a matter of a simple letter hopefully in time, possibly in time for their September meeting. And then it's just a matter of somebody finding a contact person. Maybe Eric knows who that is.
Great. Okay, well, we've had a long I meeting got to do a quick break. I will be back in two minutes and we will continue on with the next thing is going to be approval of minutes from the last meeting. So do your best to review that in the next minute or two.
If you're looking for the minutes of the August 3 meeting, you don't have them. I had put them together and was able to access my computer to print them out or post them. Was just going to defer to the next meeting, have those addressed at the next meeting, if that would be Okay. Guess so.
Okay. I see Anne maybe took a quick break for something there too. Just there.
Ann, are you there? I saw your little box light up like you might be close by. Okay. I understand Andy is not with us right this minute. I am still going to, at this point, make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from 07/18/2022.
July 20, I think it's I think that's that was that's an error, I believe. Is that an error? Okay. The the eighteenth I I believe the twentieth was the ZBA meeting, and I just So the eighteenth is right, I believe. Yep. So
my copy said the eighteenth on it. Yep. Yeah, go with that. Yeah, July 18 is the right date. Eighteenth is the right date. And I had no comments on the minutes. Anybody else have any comments? Hearing none, I will call for a vote. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. Kevin? Aye.
I vote aye as well. We'll put Anne down for an abstention. Yeah, I'm Here she is. Sorry. No, we were voting on the approval of the minutes, Ann. Okay. I'll say aye. Okay. And I vote aye as So the motion carries five zero zero. I think Jim was mentioning before the special meeting minutes of August 3 are not out yet, so we will vote on those at the next meeting. Okay. Under correspondence, as you heard Carol Barton mention at the start, has sent a letter to me requesting that we think again about the 15 foot requirement, which is essentially width of most right of ways. Our actual regulation says that signs won't be put in the town right away or 15 foot from the lot lines on either side. So I said that's generally 15 feet. That's based on, we've got a town ordinance that was approved in 1953 that said roads will be, the right of way will be at least 50 feet wide with the road being 20 feet wide. So that gives us 30 feet for right of way, which is 15 feet on each side.
So that was my basis for making that comment. Our attorney is currently on vacation. I would like to just, you know, before I have a discussion on that with him, Make sure that we're right on that. How does the commission feel in general about not, you know, Carol Barton's concern was she's got, you know, some bushes maybe that are 12 feet back from the road. So if she were to put it at the 15 foot part, it would be on the other side of the bush. And that might be unfair. Any other commission members have any thoughts on that?
My thought is that if it does not block the view of the driver or pedestrian, then the sign could be a little bit closer in those cases where there's bushes prohibiting it otherwise. You know if it's, they put them in front of their bushes instead of in the bushes then as long as you can see, you can see when you're driving and see when you're walking and the drivers can see the people walking. It's okay with me. The, any other thoughts?
I do understand what Anne is saying. Only tricky thing is to put it in a regulation, I feel like you have to make it quantifiable. You can't just say it as long as you can see because everyone's definition is different. I know. That is a difficult And
after I got that letter and started thinking about that letter, as I walked around the neighborhood here, there are some people that have bushes right up against the road. How would they put out an election sign? There are some houses that have a guardrail where the property drops off right after you get around the road. So there are a couple of issues that I want to discuss with Attorney Branch before bringing it back to the Commission to see if there's anything we want to do. But I recognize what Kevin just said because I tried to come up with some words that I thought would be fair to everybody, as her letter said. And there are some people, it just isn't going to be fair. And I also think that if putting up an election sign is important to you, you've got the right to make a choice. You can choose to have a bush there that prevents you from putting the sign or you can remove the bush, put the sign and complies with that.
That's one option. The other thing that I really wasn't keen on, and one of her points is that we allow signs to be up for supporting the teachers, for painters, roofers, all that kind of stuff. Well, we really don't. Know, the regulation says no signs in the right of way. Then say no signs except roofer signs. And so the fact that we're not currently enforcing signs is a different issue than what our regulations allow. The other thing I was thinking was that I think there's some political signs that I don't want, I don't think should be on town property. And if we allow any signs on town property, we have to allow election sign or political signs on town property. And I didn't think too much of that. So there's a couple of subtleties I just want to go through with attorney branch. But those were my thoughts as I reconsidered it. And at the next meeting we'll give an opportunity, you know, I'll have some more info on something,
a little technical issue I want to make sure we're clean on, but those are my thoughts. And certainly, if everybody thinks that we should be putting signs out to the road, I guess we can put that in there, but you know we'd have to regulate the size and the sight lines and all that kind of stuff and then enforcement's even harder to get there. So that's where we're at on that. More to follow next week. I obviously did not do a very good job of explaining myself at the public hearing on the side regs because they're asking for the same thing over again. And that's okay. Administrative reports.
Enforcement actions. I have a blight ordinance out. I'm sorry, letter went out to property on Long Hill Road. I apologize, I forget the street, the number regarding junk. I indicated I would follow-up on 12th Center Street, and I have not hope to get them an actual citation out tomorrow. I just apologize. I just got a little backed up. I've been working with Steve Barnett on Route 6. He has made some progress cleaning up. I'm trying to stay on top of him. There's a number of other complaints that are pending that I'm working on as far as contacting the owner. That's pretty much it.
Okay, and everybody should have got the little email thing I sent out from the letter to the editor from the River East on trying to address a similar situation over in Marlborough. I've got other examples from other towns where none of those enforcement things are easy. Do you have anything on home occupations, Jim? Yeah, I just we've had a few
applications for home occupations of late that are handled administratively. And they are specifically allowed pretty clearly in the regs or particularly when that's allowed. What we don't have is really a database of those applications that have been approved over the years. And I don't know, so I'm not sure how I would go about doing that. But I'm going to at least try moving forward to have that database so that we can notify folks to renew their permit. They actually put together an actual application for a permit, because I don't believe there was one. And it calls for a there's a fee, which is it's nice, but also, it's an opportunity to go take a look at what's going on. I mean, very often, occupations start out benign, sometimes they grow. And that's a way to keep track of them. I mean, basically, you go out and do an inspection on an annual basis. An inspection could be a drive by. If you don't see anything, there's no issue. So I'm just working on that. And the problem is the minutes don't reflect. So we're permitted I can pull out the home occupations that received special permits, if there's any follow-up on there. But the administrative ones, I mean, there's simply no way that I'm aware of. Could read that information. So I'll make a point, maintain that moving forward. And occupations that have been approved in the past come up late. I'll just add them to that database. That's all I have on that.
Okay. Now, I would have assumed that any application for a home occupation would have come to the commission. But I hadn't really thought about it. I just made that assumption kind of like accessory apartments. You know, there's some that can almost be an administrative approval, but they all come to the Commission at this point, might want to change that. But it wasn't anything that I'd ever ever thought about. And I know I haven't heard anything about home occupation things. So I guess consistent with what they do in wetlands, whenever there's an administrative action by you, Jim, you should be briefing the Commission on it just so we can we're aware and we can have some dialogue on how that's going. And that's what we do over there on, you know, Agent Wagner can approve things that are in the upland review area without the Commission approval, but he briefs us on what's going on. Nothing for the inland wetlands liaison at this point. Just a heads up, I was going to talk about the annual report tonight. I'm not going to because it's a little late. We'll talk about that next time. I still haven't had any requests for one. The thing that I am thinking about being more vocal on,
you look, write down and it looks like we did a lot of good stuff. The thing that that report does not show is that whether it's the affordable housing plan, the next plan of conservation and development, all the changes to regulations that are required by Public Act 21 dash 29 in the review by our attorney, there is a real backlog of work that I am not getting done to bring to the Commission to talk about. And certainly some of the solution to that might be the town planner. That's the only solution that I can think of to that backlog. But I think we're not doing the town a favor by not highlighting that issue that's coming up. So anyhow, I'm working on how to put a little bit of bad news in there. It looks like all the public members are gone, so we've got no public speak. Next regularly scheduled meeting September 19. Any other questions or comments for any commission members before we head for adjournment?
Jim Hallisey? Yes. Did you ever talk to the people at the top of Long Hill about adding a dumpster up there? Yes. Yep. And I
I am I've contacted them a number of times and I'm gonna follow-up with a actually, I'm gonna send out is a is a citation for flight along with the dumpster. The direction to provide a dumpster. The reason I'm doing that is the dumpster ordinance doesn't, as far as I can tell, doesn't have a lot of bite, whereas the bite citation does. So I was going mention it as an aside, and not tell him that obviously, yeah, that the citation will say that, you know, clean it up by such and such a date, or you know, fine will be imposed 25 a day or whatever it is. Also, you know, and as an aside, kind of mentioned the fact that he should have a gunshot on-site. The ability to find on that basis, yes. He was very cooperative in the beginning and I kind of lost. I reached out to him and didn't hear back from a week ago or so. We're talking about down near Bear Swamp, right? Near section of Bear Swamp and Right, in Long Yeah, there's another one in Long Hill in addition that I have to pursue too, it's open to the public, open to the elements to how to step back from the road on the roof. Been that way for years I believe. It's not particularly visible, so
I haven't made it a priority, but I have it on my list. Thanks, Jim.
Any other questions or comments? I just want to thank everybody for hanging in there tonight. It was a little difficult. Jim was doing a couple of things that he was not used to doing tonight. Whether it's working on the minutes, trying to share the screens, hosting the thing in addition to doing his normal duties there. But I think we got through a lot of good stuff. I was particularly pleased with how the the gravel pit thing seems to be winding up. I thought that was a pretty good solution and but there's some things that certainly are going to require some homework on our point, our parts which is like that Rosewood acres thing you know when you you know I am not familiar and I'm sure nobody else is on the mixed use regs that we've got there. So anyhow I really appreciate you guys sticking in there. I don't like going over three hours, but we did. So in an effort to not make it any longer, I move
that we adjourn. I'll second. Second it. Thank you, Scott. Any discussion? Hearing none, Anne? Aye.
Scott, aye. Kevin? I Aye. Leigh Ann? Leanne, I can't see or hear you. I guess Leanne will abstain. I vote aye as well. The motion carries four-zero-one with Leanne abstaining. Thank you all so much and good night. Good night. Thank you.