Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
May 4, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Good evening everyone. It's 07:00 and it looks like All Ashore is coming ashore and we're ready to start this regular meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission. Following screen order, I see commissioner Jim Halsey, Commissioner Ed Smith, alternate William Monroe, and Commissioner Jed Larson present. And we will seat alternate William Monroe in place of Commissioner Megan Lawley, who has indicated that she will not be present tonight. Do we have any additions or alterations of the agenda? Seeing none, then I'll proceed to item four on the agenda, the approval of minutes. We have, of course, minutes from the public hearing and the meeting. I just got an echo. Okay, I guess the feedback's all gone. So back to the minutes, I suppose we should probably consider the minutes of the hearing and the minutes of the meeting
separately. First of all, are there any corrections or additions to the minutes for the hearing? I have one comment there, George? Sure. On
the second to the last paragraph there, the third line up from the bottom, it talks about the larger four foot wide by eight foot tall box culvert. And I think that should be a four foot tall by eight foot wide box culvert. I think you're right. That's correct.
Okay, anything else that needs referenced? How about a motion then to approve the minutes as corrected? Move to approve motions as corrected. Ballanty. Okay.
A second? Larson will second. Okay. So a motion by Halsey, second by Larson to approve the minutes of the hearing. I guess I'll have to do a roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner oops, my screen just got changed. Commissioner Monroe? Aye.
Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. And I also vote aye, so the motion carries five-zero-zero. Next, the minutes of the meeting. I have one minor correction. In the sentence containing the phrase upstream effects, it should be effects with an e, not affects with an a. Nice pickup, George. How's that? Was nice data.
Good. Okay. Any other corrections or additions to the minutes of the meeting? Give you a minute to do the scan. Okay, well, no further corrections or additions, I will ask again for a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Make a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion by Larson. Need a second. I'll second it.
Okay, second by Monroe. And again, by roll call, Hallisey? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Larson? Aye. Smith? Aye.
And I also vote aye. So again, the motion carries five, zero, zero. Item five on the agenda, public comment. Remember, this is the opportunity for any members of the public who wish to comment on items on the agenda. Okay, I see a hand raised. There's a palm up there in the corner. Mr. Allard? You can unmute. Mindy, could you unmute Mr. Allard?
Did that turn out? Okay. We there? Okay, you're on. Okay, yeah. I just heard of that one amendment that you approved there, box, the size of the box being changed from a four to an eight, eight foot wide in that area?
He was correcting the description of what was approved. It was actually, eight foot wide, four foot high on the plans. It was misdescribed in the in the hearing.
Okay. Oh, so they're talking about opening the area up more so than it was originally planned. Yeah, I I would like to know what changed in that wetlands area from the time that the original builder had it and couldn't build in that area because of it being a wetlands, and then the second owner not building over there because it being a wetlands. And if this was an approved project to put a COVID in back now, why wasn't it approved back when, when the original builder was halted from building there? And the other builder, he didn't build there either. So how did this wetland suddenly not become a wetlands or
approve to fill in and put this box in?
I think that that's a misconstrual of the permit application before us. I don't have any direct history of well, first of all, I'm not aware of any prior application to bridge this wetlands. The history of the property, as related by Mr. Person in the hearing, indicates that, of course, it was originally part of a subdivision. And at one point, obviously, there must have been some consideration. There must have been a permit application for an entry or access to the property from was it Old Farms or Times Farm Road? And that was approved, and there was no further action. The present application to bridge the wetlands would allow for development of the property, a subdivision of the property, to construct two residents on that. Now, that is not our concern. Our concern is only that there is an application to bridge a wetlands that involves a watercourse. That's the only thing we're considering in this commission and with this application.
Okay. Okay. The only other thing I was thinking of is, see, that's a clear understanding of what your project is here. In talking to several of the neighbors here, we did notice that when building did start up on that Old Farms Road, a lot of people on this road lost their water and had to come up with new wells. And the water that left over after the project was a lot of rust and some people are finding it very difficult with that. Now that your concern. I know it's just the wetland, but that area is like a big sponge. And if you look at the two brooks that come in or the two water flows that do come into that area, and you look at the amount of water that comes through on a nice rainy day, and look at the amount of water that leaves the property and goes into the other brook on the adjacent side, you'll see it's about a trickle compared to what comes in. So that water is basically sitting there and soaking into the ground. Is that gonna affect my groundwater at some point or anybody around me?
If we can say clearly that it's not going to, I understand that the bigger hole that you're gonna put in there, the eight by four is much better than the four by eight, and it will flow, and it probably won't flood my backyard, or it may, we don't know yet. But there's just a few questions as far as that wetland and that being, that an aquifer, is that filling an aquifer? Where is that water actually going? I know the person that did the survey of it and thought that it was a good idea to put up this this bridge across there, looked at it in the winter and never really gave consideration to it in the summer or in the time that it was raining to really see what the water was doing. At least that's what he said. He said that he was there in the winter. And I don't know if he'd been back there since. And I don't know if anybody on the board has gone over and actually looked at that land to see if it, what, how it how it how you describe it as otherwise, we just say it's wetland. I noticed when I looked up online that there was a lot of descriptions as to Wetland. Let's see. I just can't find my note. How do like that? But yeah, that's all I was really concerned with. I to me, it really don't matter if there's a house up there or not or two houses up there. What would worry me is if he subdivided
after he already had a house up there because we opened up a way to let him up there, and he put a dozen houses up there right behind us. And, and then there was problems because it was blasting involved with making the other houses. So but that's not you're you're just dealing with wetland. I understand that. But those are just my concerns there. And that's my opinion, and that's what I voiced.
I'll just make one point here that we do, in fact, have record from the ecologist who consulted on that, who provided photographs of streamflow conditions after heavy rainfall. And
the commission did a sidewalk on the property. And so we've seen the area of the crossing as well as a little bit upstream and downstream. Of course, we were constrained by the property boundaries. We didn't have permission to look further upstream or downstream without explicit permission of the property owner. So we were restricted, essentially, to looking at the immediate area of the crossing. But we did see where the intermittent water courses flowed, and as they said, the photographs that were submitted on part of the testimony clearly showed the conditions under what I would take to be a flow following a heavy rain event, and including the two water courses that converge and the area below the proposed crossing where the two water courses converge into sort of meander before they again converge to a single watercourse that runs down to the Hawk River. So yeah, we are cognizant of that. Oh, very good, very good. Okay, okay. Very good, sir, thank you. You're welcome.
Okay, so any other public comments? I guess we don't have any other public to comment, so I'll move on to item six, all business, and that is, of course, IWWC application twenty-thirty six. Briefly to summarize the conclusion of the discussion at the last meeting, Commissioner Halsey wanted to get back and review, particularly some of the testimony by Hank Gruner, And we also asked for further engineering analysis with regard to the potential for upstream impact, as well as, again, making sure we understood the downstream impact of this proposed crossing. Today, Agent Wagner distributed a letter or a report. Well, let's see now. Its full title is well, it ends in the Review
by bhanfield5321. Pdf. So members of the commission should have received that, and I believe that that has been posted online in the record for this application. And I well, let's see here. I don't see engineer Hanfield on the call.
Yeah. You want to I just wanted to let you know it wasn't posted yet online because Oh, it hasn't been posted yet. Late. It came in late this afternoon.
That's what I figured. Okay. Okay, let's see. I don't see as I said, I don't see any engineer Hanfield on this. I guess let me pull that document up on my other screen here. It's an extensive analysis. There were two points that I noted. One, I see that engineer Bushnell is on the call. Maybe he can explain this to us. A comment sorry, too many files and not enough organization. Okay, there was one comment oh, great, thank you. Thank you, Joe. One comment in item number two of the report, it says that the hydraulic grade line for one hundred year storm well below the 52 hydraulic grade line. Could someone explain in more or less layman's term exactly what is meant by hydraulic grade line?
Yes, Andrew Bushnell. Thank you. Bushnell Associates. Hydraulic grade line is the level of the water.
Okay. So I guess the question I want to ask here is, let's assume, for the sake of assumption, the improbable event that both culverts get completely blocked and the crossing acts as a dam. My take on that is that water would flow over the dam before it backed up. Correct.
Okay, to the level of the property at 52. Okay. Now, of course, the other comment I have is essentially, Andrew Hanfield would like more information. So the question is then, can that information be provided based on the study so far? Yes, yeah. It can be.
Okay. So we should be able to get a clear answer to the question of whether or not there would be significant upstream effects, with an E, from this project? Correct. Okay. Regrettably, we don't have those answers right now. And so I have to ask members of the commission if they are satisfied with the information provided to date. And if not, what further do they require?
Chairman Elliott, this is Larson. I guess what I would like is the information provided in the letter wasn't provided or wasn't assessed by Mr. Hanfield. He has a bunch of other questions but we asked Mr. Hanfel for his assessment on the upstream. We don't have it yet. I would like to get his buy in. If he were satisfied that everything was good based on the one hundred year storm at 52 Pine Ridge Drive. I think he should have said that in his letter, but he didn't. He asked for more data and he specifically did not answer the question we asked him.
I take your point. Okay, any other comments or information that might be required?
One other comment on that, Chairman Elliott, is do we need to reopen the public hearing so we can have the information once we get it in the public record so that it can be part of the decision process?
Well, it be on the record as part of our deliberations as commission. So no, I don't think and since the information was specifically or requested by the commission, we would not need a further hearing. The hearing did allow for public input and comment. And as an informational process, further information can be gathered without having to go to a hearing, especially when it's information specifically requested by the commission. Commissioner Hallisey. Yes.
You, I think, alluded to a desire to review some of the comments that were made both in the hearing, I think, and during our regular meeting process. Have you been able to do that? And were there questions still pending from your
point of view? I did review the letters from both environmental consultants. And I, I mean, I do have a concern that the town's consultant appears to still be concerned. But there was no definitive direction from Hank that I could see other than a bridge spanning the entire stream crossings. So I'm okay with what I've reviewed. Yes, thank you for the opportunity. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the commission?
Chairman Elliott, I do have two other comments that probably aren't pertinent to the discussion, but make the drawings complete. And on the site plan, I think it's page five of six, it wasn't clear to me that the orientation of the large four by eight foot culvert is properly oriented on the drawing. I think it's consistent with what the minutes originally reflected. And the size in there, well actually it says three inches by eight inches. Sure that was a typo, should have been three by eight. But we've been talking about four by eight. And so I would like to make sure that the drawings reflect what we're all agreeing to as far as proposed mitigation of the storm water.
So Andrew Bushnell again, it's three foot because we're filling in a foot of it to maintain the natural channel bed for army corps requirements. So it's three foot clear, you know.
Okay, I understand. The other thing that I would ask you to take a look at is it looked like the topography numbers, there's a disconnect when we go from the driveway to the main site. It goes from like 196 to 300 feet. Yeah.
So we did the wetlands that was field Topo. All that was all field Topography through there because it was a critical area. So we use an assumed data, assume benchmark. When we went to do the re subdivision plan as we had old Topo from the original subdivision that was on a different data. We use the original subdivision plan, Tobo for the subdivision part. So there is between the two plans.
So we should not expect that to appear consistent throughout. Don't Yeah.
Yeah, there's no way to tie into that original subdivision to get on that to that benchmark and tie in. Yeah, to make it work, unfortunately. Okay. That was all I had, Chairman Elliott.
Okay, thank you. So in any event, it seems unfortunate, but it looks like we're going to have to defer further action on this permit application until we can shake that definitive answer from our consulting engineer. And I guess I'll have to ask our agent Wagner to see if we can get that done as expeditiously as possible. And I would consider calling a special meeting to work on this application because there's been considerable back and forth in terms of trying to get information the commission needs to make its decision. And as I'll comment later, I do not expect to be able to attend the June meeting, the June regular meeting. So in order to keep this thing moving and get some final resolution for the applicants, as I say, I would consider a special meeting to address this application. Would that be agreeable to the commission? I have no problem with that. I
going step away for a minute and go get my calendar.
Thank you. I'm going to pop my calendar up on my other screen. Given that the information requested by Mr. Hanfield is evidently available, I would hope that a couple of weeks lead time will be sufficient to address the issues remaining. And so I would propose a meeting for the week of May 17. Mr. Monroe seems to think it's Okay. My calendar is really clear these days.
I know on the seventeenth, we have the Planning and Zoning Commission,
so it can't be that bad. Okay. Well, we certainly wouldn't want to conflict with that. But how about the rest of the remainder of the week?
Yeah, the rest of the week looks clear for me. Okay. Mr. Halsey? I should be fine that week. Ed Smith?
Clear for me, but not Saturday, if that was in the Oh,
Yeah, would make this a weeknight, 07:00. Don't we should we say the eighteenth then, Tuesday, May 18, 07:00. Okay. I'll make that in the form of a motion. I guess we should make sure that everybody's Okay with that. Again, Jim, you're Okay with that? Yes. Mr. Monroe, you're Okay with that? Jed? Yep.
Okay. Ed? So we'll schedule a special meeting then for, again, the eighteenth. And other than the usual standard stuff, this will be this application will be the only item on the agenda. Okay. Any other questions, comments, input on the application?
Chairman Elliott, this is Eric Liteska. Was hoping I could speak for a couple of minutes. Sure. Okay. So I was just hoping it would be helpful for a moment to kind of go through a little bit of the history of the design and explain how we've kind of arrived at the design that we have and how it's conformed to the concerns that Mr. Gruner, the herpetologist, as well as the consulting engineer, Hanfield, have gotten, you know, their input. We've really been trying as we've gone along here to respond directly to their concerns. And because this has taken place over the course of several months, I was hoping it would be thought of as kind of helpful to put it all together and explain how we are where we are today. I do appreciate, by the way, the commission's accommodation there to have a special meeting. But going back a little while here, you know, this is actually almost to the day, a year since the first time we came before the commission. We showed a very early conceptual plan. The commission was nice enough, kind enough to listen to what our thoughts were and give us some, early thoughts. I went back and looked at the, the minutes of that meeting and, Chairman Lally said, well, know, of course we were advised we needed a permit for the crossing and that, you know, decisions were made based on the impact of the wetlands.
Chairman Lally said that the design of the crossing would have to ensure that there was no flooding onto adjacent properties. She was thinking ahead obviously since that that came up a while later, and is exactly what we're focused on now. She also said that the Commission would like any plan to be as environmentally conservative as possible. She concluded by saying that, based on what was presented there were certainly solutions. We acquired the land a few months later. We, we immediately started working on delineating the wetlands down in this area a little bit better than they had been and then started designing the crossing with,
Mr. Bushnell. And then eventually we ended up, you know, after Mr. Gruner submitted his report, we started working with, George Logan, who started doing direct, very direct assessments of the impact locally upstream, downstream from an ecological perspective, and then also from a wet stream, from a wetlands perspective. Mr. Hanfield also started looking at our report and then, and, or looking at our, you know, application and then advised, recommended that we start talking to the, Army Corps of Engineers, which of course we did. It was a little bit hard to get in touch with them, but eventually we did get, we did connect with somebody there and indeed they informed us that this crossing was going to be in their jurisdiction. And we are going to, you know, we're in the process of doing, getting a general permit from them. We've also modified the plans. Their requirements for stream crossings, even though this is an intermittent stream, they consider this a stream and they have, standards that we're, you know, that you should meet when you're, when you're crossing something in their jurisdiction. So we modified the, modified the plans to meet their requirements. And then of course, we've also added in the so called icing on the cake. We've added the mitigation elsewhere on the property. We're going to remove invasive species, plant species and plant, you know, something better to be growing in a wetlands area. Now there's still work that Mr. Bushnell is going to do to work with Mr. Hanfield. So I'm not going to talk about the, you know, the flow dynamics, so the capacity of the system and the potential upstream impact. So I do want Mr. Allard to know that, you know, we've heard him, we take what he's saying very seriously,
and we would, you know, we're being very careful about the design, for that reason. Want, like Mr. Gruner, and since Commissioner Hallisey mentioned, his report and his opinion, If you read Mr. Gruner's report, he had two, he obviously, his primary recommendation was a bridge really elevating above the channel totally, to minimize the impact. But a secondary recommendation that he made was not dissimilar to what we have now. He recommended one open box or, open bottom culvert and he recommended placing it on the Eastern Channel, the Eastern stream bed. And the reason for that most likely was because it's wider and he's concerned, about channelization of the water. What our design is, is one box culvert, which is a little bit different than an open bottom in that, we we've got to restore the stream bed afterwards, but it is part of our design to put, the stream material back into it. It will function like an open bottom culvert.
And now it's on the Western Channel, not the Eastern Channel. And the reason for that is our, consulting ecologists and engineer agreed that there's a larger watershed on that side and that if animals were to, you know, small, mid sized wildlife were to approach the crossing, they were more likely to prefer a flatter gradient. And that's where that, it's steeper on the other side, on the Eastern Channel. So for those two reasons, it did make sense to put box on that side. Now it also happens that that's the side right up against the properties on Pine Ridge Drive. So if there is some risk of obstruction or other things that would cause backup, they've been minimized by us moving it and putting it on that side. Now, just to address that last, the channelization, the thing that Mr. Gruner, you know, has brought up, revisited a few times. I mean, would just ask the commission to go back to, the first report submitted by our, consultant, Mr. Logan. There's photos. If you don't recall them, revisit the report and look at them. Immediately south of the site of the crossing, the water, the water, and the stream beds like converge under, under really wet conditions. The important part of our design, think on the side where there's still a three foot round pipe, which by the way will be embedded, is at the part where the water, the part where the water exits is going to have riprap, right? And it's the, at the, the direct purpose of the riprap is to dissipate the energy of the water flowing out of it, slow the velocity, and spread it back out over the area. If you look, if you look at the plans, you can see that it's wider than, it's far wider than where the water just exits. It's really got the purpose of spreading it back out to an area similar to what,
the footprint of the bed was to begin with. And the recurring, you know, the recurring discussion about the bridge, I just want to revisit it one more time and, you know, it was either in the public hearing or in the comments afterward, that the Army Corps of Engineers best management practices were read from. Now it is an independent jurisdiction from the Andover Commission, right? An independent jurisdiction that we are going through a permit process with separately. And it is true that if you read the publication from the New England District of the Army Corps, that spans are the preferred method for crossings. However, if you read a footnote, the first time the word spans appears, there's a footnote that says three sided and open bottom culverts are included in definition of span. So ours is a box culvert, and that again is a little bit different, right? We will have to restore the stream bed after we, you know, dig it and drop the box culvert in. However, I think it's really important for the commission to understand that it's not the army corps position. They are not saying that bridges are preferred, spans are preferred, not bridges. And we really, we, you know, it's confirmation of that. We've, we've talked to the, to the army corps. They're familiar with what we're doing. Nobody has even suggested
at all that a bridge spanning the whole channel is, you know, is what we should be doing here instead of the crossing. They've informed us that the culvert is what we to do to comply with the practices. And finally, you know, I apologize for talking for a while here, you know, having a little bit of time to think about some of the things that were said in the public hearing and then afterwards, you know, we are not aware of, and in the last year, no one in the commission, no one consulting on the application, has brought to our attention any applicable statutes or regulations that prohibit the construction of a crossing like the one that we're proposing based on the amount of square footage of the impacted area or the volume of fill that has to come into construct it. These are of course important considerations, or, criteria for determining, you know, regulatory jurisdiction methods, and maybe most importantly, the amount of scrutiny that should be applied to an application. And indeed, just as you would expect, you know, the moment that our application was submitted, this commission, a motion was made and was carried to consider this a significant activity. And since then we have complied, you know, we have cooperated, we have acted in good faith, substantial changes have been made to the design after careful analysis and consideration from our professionals
and, in direct response to the concerns made by, you know, the folks who are consulting on behalf of the commission. Our construction budget for the crossing has nearly tripled from where it started, and we believe the pro-, we believe the process the commission has taken us through has been thorough and professional, and we believe it, we just believe that the design as it is exceeds the town's, regulations, and strikes an appropriate balance between the cost of constructing a driveway for a, to serve one household with, the appropriate measures to mitigate the risks, and minimize the impact. So I mean, I'm sorry for taking a few minutes here, but I really, this having taken place over a long time, I thought it would be helpful to summarize the back and forth that's been going on, for even for the commission, it's, you know, it's probably difficult to always remember everything that's going on with every application, but we hope that you'll just bear in mind that we've been working diligently to try and address the concerns of the commission and then of course the members of the public here who's attended the public hearing. So thank you. Thank
you, Eric. Yeah, you're right. It has been an iterative process. There has been a lot of back and forth. And you're quite right. This is a permittable type of activity. I, in fact, had a little back and forth with, Agent Wagner, and I think that perhaps by the next hearing we might have some comparison. Unfortunately, my personal records don't go back that far, and my institutional memory is only a couple of years here, but certainly we have permitted wetland crossings for driveways, including one of the early ones that I worked on, a permit for a driveway on Townsend Road that also involved crossing an intermittent water course. Now, a smaller one, a lot less engineering involved in the crossing, but still comparable on the order of magnitude area. And so from that point of view,
yes, you're quite right. This is an activity that is permittable under our regulations. And I guess the questions are all really related to both the environmental impact and the how shall I say the environmental sensitivity of this particular crossing as it happens to be pretty closely adjacent to the Hop River. So, you know, with that in mind, obviously, I think more questions have been raised than you might see for a less impacting application. And again, I think it seems to be coming down to just this one last piece of information where we would like to have a direct answer from our consulting engineer regarding the upstream impacts. And I sincerely hope that at the special meeting, will be able to resolve this issue and make an informed decision on your application. Again, while we're at it, will ask Agent Wagner see if he can delve into the town hall files and look for reasonably comparable crossings in terms of the number, at least the square footage impacted and the kinds of engineering solutions that have gone into it. Again, as I say, my institutional memory is too short to serve for that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, Elliot, would I be able to ask a couple of follow-up questions since we did have the opportunity to listen? Sure. Ahead. The
first question, and you maybe covered it, is I was interested in why you went with the box culvert instead of the three sided thing. And I forget the name of it, but you made that distinction and I didn't know why.
George, feel free to. Yeah, I can answer that. The four sided box culvert is a it's more available than the three sided there's only one or two manufacturers in this area that do that and. To be honest, the four sided. Doctor. Box culvert is structurally stronger.
Okay. And my second question is, we've continued this dialogue in refining how we're going. I'll just do the half interval search one more time. I agree that probably the bridge is not cost effective for one house. But I am wrestling with Mr. Bruner's comments concerning the flow and the siltation and the erosion in that. And so one of the alternatives that we alluded to during the public hearing but we didn't really discuss would have been to have two box culverts. And that way we can put one where Mr. Bruner thought it should be and one where you thought it should be. And that would really you know, maximize the span without going to the cost of the bridge. And you don't need to have an answer to that tonight. But that's
one of the things that I'm wrestling with is we're trying to come up with what the best proposal is here to do all of those things.
I believe that was addressed. I won't trust my own recollection, but I think Zener that Bushnell commented on that proposal. Do you recall that comment about why not two blocks over it instead of one in terms of the impact on stream flow and so forth?
I'm trying to remember. I don't remember right off the top of my head. No, sorry.
I think, I mean, part of this of course is cost. These culverts are very expensive but I don't think that there is, much gained in terms of, capacity and performance of the system to sort of maintain the integrity of the stream channel other than just having a wider spot in one place where we're, you know, where we're gonna allow the water to flow through. I mean, we are like well beyond the hundred year in terms of flow, right? So the only benefit is of going to the larger culvert on the second side is really just preserving stream bed even though,
right? I mean, that what it boils down to? Mean Just preserving some more stream bed width, right, compared to the three foot culvert, sure.
I understand. So I still do have concerns, haven't certainly made up my mind one way or the other yet. But I did go back and review the photos that were submitted on that. And one of the things that surprised me, and we didn't have any appreciation for it from the site visit, and that rain wasn't it was a heavy rain, but not an extraordinary rain, was the extensiveness of the wetland in just the vast square footage of that coverage. And so I'm wrestling with, is the right thing to do to have the two spans, if you will, to minimize the impact on that or not? And I made up my mind. I just wanted to share with you what
I was thinking, only one member of the commission, but that's what I'm wrestling with going forward.
If I may comment here, I believe that that confluence, the extensive area of wetland and a water course is actually, that's actually downstream from the crossing.
It is slightly. Not far, but it is. Those photos were really just a little bit south of the crossing area, where you really see the water fanned out.
Okay, any further discussion from the Commission? Okay, if not, I would like to move on to the next item on our agenda, item seven, enforcement actions. We have an outstanding enforcement action at 33 Route 87. And at our last meeting, we asked Agent Wagner to follow-up on that, and I'm anxious to hear what there is to report.
Is agent Wagner. I did send an email letter on April 15. Basically told him what you guys said about the commission's desire for progress before the next meeting. And then Kurt was in contact with me, said that Mark was planning on getting over there this weekend. Guess Mark was over there. Mark Williams is the contractor that's doing the work. And Kurt sent me pictures this afternoon. They had cut the driveway, which they needed to do to move the shed. So they cut cut the asphalt out. And then when I drove by and there's a excavators over there, the trailers over there. And Kurt told me that they're planning on moving the shed within the next day or two. So that's where we're at that. They sent me a bunch of pictures this afternoon. I didn't have time to post them to the website or or write anything up, but it's basically just pictures of the driveway getting cut.
Okay. So we're seeing a little bit of progress, some activity. Anybody on the Commission want to weigh in on this?
I guess we expect that it will be complete by the time we come to our special meeting. Maybe we should add that to the special meeting agenda.
I would entertain that, yes. We definitely need to keep on top of this. So that enforcement action should be on the agenda for any meeting until it's finally resolved, because, of course, in addition to moving the shed once the shed is moved, then that should allow removal of the material that was deposited in the banks, and otherwise trying to restore the situation and conduct the rest of the activities that were part of the original plan. You know, the geoengineering, you know, the fabric and the riprap and everything to stabilize the bank. I'd have to go back and look because my recollection doesn't go back that far. But I guess as long as there's some progress, we can simply continue to add that to our agenda rather than having to take further costly and time consuming enforcement action? We don't need a motion, but I would like a sense of agreement or consensus that we can go for. Now, let's see here. Okay. Equipment's
on-site. That's a big step. Let's just take a look at it in another few weeks, revisit it, make sure it's on the agenda because it is in fact a special meeting and can't be added. That's all. I do have a question perhaps for Joe. The driveway has to be cut to move the ship. Is that because of a Grage? Why is that? I
asked Kurt about that. He told me it was the weight of the shed. So that the driveway is just not a sufficient base for the shed. It would sink in after a while, so they'd cut it. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Well, if we have no further questions or comments about the enforcement action, we can move on to the other aspects of the agent report on agenda item number eight. Looks like we've got some pending administrative permits.
Yep, got a few. I don't know what order they are in the agenda. I have my notes here. I got one for 109 Lakeside Drive.
Okay. The first one on our agenda is 85 Lakeside Drive. Okay. Yeah, that one's still
just waiting for zoning and if it needs a nutrient allocation worksheet, would which might change the the plan on the wetland side. So I haven't approved that one yet. And then let's see what's the next one is that I have one for 191 Long Hill Road. Yep.
There was a guy that had cut. I got a report that he cleared some trees out of the area, a 100 foot upland review area. It was a pretty big area. So I called him about it. The definition of clear cutting is pretty vague in the regs, the regulations. But I mean, looked like there was a substantial cut. He had at least he told me he didn't have any idea that he needed a permit. So we're working through that right now. He wanted to remove the stumps, So definitely needs a permit. He submitted one to me. Paid the appropriate fees and everything. So I'm working with that. Then there's another one for 109 Lakeside Drive. Where a guy was working his landscaping crew was building a bigger parking area for the cars or putting stonewall into replace some Ron railroad ties, and then they're putting a pathway all in the front yard. So in between Lakeside Drive and the house at 109. That's in the Upland Review area. So he's working with me through the permitting process. I had him put some some hay or straw bales to as a sediment barrier and keep anything from flowing into the lake. That one should not. I'm pretty sure that one doesn't need a zoning permit because it's all landscaping more. So those are the three that are on my desk right now. For
the commission, I got an email just before the meeting from Megan Lally, who was not able to attend tonight, but commenting on the fact that we have activities in the upland review area for Andover Lake. And I guess there's been a history of some contentious activities, such as the tree removal lot that Mr. Denley referred to as Little Bit Of Heaven under the jurisdiction of our former wetlands agent. And again, the thought here was that perhaps the upland review area for the lake might deserve a little more scrutiny and whether those things should be subject to agent approval, which technically they are, but again, how the commission feels about activities, again, in that particularly sensitive and congested area. I'm neutral on the subject, but I did want to bring it up and ask if any members of the commission wanted to weigh in on that consideration.
Again, the idea is, do we want heavier scrutiny for activities in the Upland Revere area around the lake? I know we have a couple Yes, I would comment that
I am not opposed to continuing the method we are currently doing. I like the fact that Agent Wagner is briefing us on the things that he comes across, which I think is an improvement from what might have happened sometimes in the past. Yeah. So I think that is good. The comment that I would make on 109 Lakeside Dry is that, you know, as I walked by and there's major excavation equipment out there and they're, you know, dragging in these truckloads full of huge boulders, you know, it was really a pretty massive undertaking. My question is, was there an expectation that activity stop until the permit was approved or had you had you approved the permit for them because I noticed that they had been out there working every day. And that caught me a little bit by surprise because it says pending approval or pending administrative review.
Yeah, I mean, the ideal situation would have been to get the permit first. But being that, I mean, it looked like a project, like I said, was on the front yard on the opposite side of the lake. It didn't seem like an erosion risk looking at the property. It flattens out pretty good when it gets to the house. I talked with the owner. We decided not, I mean, if we stopped it and then I issued a permit and waited the two weeks, then I mean, there really would be no difference. Whereas if they continued the work, got it done, got it seeded, it would be seems like it would be less of a runoff risk. Just continuing with it, especially since I was planning on approving it. Because it seemed like a seemed like a reasonable project. They're using all natural stone and they aren't building anything that's impermeable in the front yard other than the stone walls.
Okay, and I agree with everything you said there. I guess my only other comment is that the lake is a little more sensitive. Our regulations say that it's a little more sensitive. In the application that the applicant submitted says there is no activity in the Upland Review area, which is wrong.
Yeah, I didn't catch that. I'll have to look at that.
And that's because our application talks about a 100 foot upland review area, which isn't always the case. And in this case, it isn't the case either. If we want to increase that sensitivity, we ought to make sure that everybody knows where the Upland Review area really is. Good
point, Jud. I had, in fact, in that in my notes for upcoming revision of our application, again, of those bits of business that have been pending for quite some time now. And I know that Agent Wagner has made some effort to improve our application, and I think that that's something that we should definitely incorporate to make clear that we have some special areas with not only the lake, but the Hawk River and Satterbrook with extended upland review areas. So that's right up front in the application, and people can't gloss over it.
It was almost ironic that the application for 191 Long Hill Road, which is not on the lake, had the three pages of lake specific information before you got to the application. Where the application on the lake conveniently or unintentionally did not have those three pages of information there. Right.
Right, I had a couple of comments. 185 Lakeside. That gazebo, the shed, whatever it is, the utility structure, is not in compliance with zoning. I did mention it to the owner, although I'm not sure he picked up on that. I don't have, I mean, he has not submitted to my knowledge an application, a zoning application. I told him that I would review it at that time, but I have not seen it. Anyway, moving on to 109. I guess I know there's a lot of, I know that we're somewhat familiar with the property and the difficulty with the parking. I'm just trying to understand the site plan. I assumed that the two rows of stone is it's holding a grade. Was wondering if Joe, I was wondering if you could confirm that.
They replaced an old, railroad ties that that used to be there. Yep.
Unfortunately, I didn't see it before, so I'm not sure. Like, they're all gone at that at the point I saw it. So, but that's what he was saying they're all rotten out so they're using stone to rebuild the walls, I think they're moving them a little bit too.
But the fact that there's two there's two two walls. You said to contain the grade on the hill?
Yeah, to keep the walls, low so they don't need, I think what was it under two? I forget what the what the application said. There are there are only a couple of feet. It was to keep them smaller. So doing
doing a couple. Yeah. Tier more. Yeah. Okay. I I guess I'm curious. There's no grades on the site plan. I'm assuming that water where is that water gonna go? Is it gonna go back to the road? Is it gonna go towards the lake? It would go towards the lake. It's all downhill Okay. From the road to the Lake.
Okay. And 191 Long Hill. I I did not see a site plan, but I did read the application and I happen to be the one who reported it. I did see it. I mean, there's a lot of trees. If pull those creeps, he's bringing Phil in, I would think. I just wanna point that out. I mean, said his end goal is to use it for his kids to play on. Yeah. I mean, it's okay. Just it's the scope of work's a little, I think in reality, a little differently than the application may have have it, has colored it. Just my opinion. That's all I have. Thank you.
Yeah. On the 191 Long Hill Road, Joe, I am sure the applicant is correct. But as I was trying to find out where this property was, I looked at the town's GIS maps under the assessor's office and I think it shows that his property line ends at the stone wall and that the area that he's cleared belongs to the person next door, at least from our drawing. And so actually, I looked on Zillow and then I looked on the town website. So I would just check into that to make sure he's clearing his property and not his neighbor's. I guess his neighbor probably would have complained if it was true. When you look at
of the lot, it shows the lot line right about where the stone wall is, very close to his house. All right, I'll take a look at that.
Good catch. That reminds me, has there been any further development on the Lake Road project. There was concern about the extent of clearing and need for permit modification.
They haven't submitted anything. I think they're going with it as as is for now. Okay. Last time I I stopped by, all the trees are still there. So That's a good sign.
Okay. Well, any other questions or comments on the permit applications under discussion? Okay. If not, ask if there's any other business. I don't have any other business.
I just figured I'd let the commission know that Amanda Gibson, the admin assistant, placed the ad in the River East for looking for new wetlands commission members. I think we've gotten two people expressed interest so far, so I sent one of them some information. I haven't talked to the other one yet.
Okay. Yeah. Thanks for copying me on that, Joe, and I'll see if I can follow-up on that as well. A word of encouragement to prospective applicants. So if you have any correspondence with the second applicant, again, sure to copy me on that. Okay. Was one of those names Tim Marshall?
Yeah. Yeah, I remember on his email, he said he would be interested in either one. And then the other one was just interested in wetland.
Yeah, was going to discuss his with Jim. We're getting together tomorrow to talk about a couple of things. But I think the Planning and Zoning Commission is full at present. And so I don't I don't think I have a spot for him. So I was going to suggest that he sounds like he would be a great candidate for the Wetlands Commission.
Good. Steer them our way. Very good. Okay. Well, as I mentioned, with regard to our next regular meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, June 7, I'm going to be in the process of cataract removal and lens replacement surgery. I get my right eye on the second and my left eye on the ninth. Now, presumably, I'll be able to see better in my right eye, but my brain will still be a little bit confused about the signals that it's getting, and I'm going to understand that screen intensive work is going to be beyond my scope during that and for a while following the surgery. So I'm going to give you a heads up that I probably won't be available. I definitely won't be available for the Monday, June 7 regular meeting. Now, that's not to say that someone else couldn't act as chair for the meeting and that there might not that there could be a quorum for the meeting. But I got to tell you that I'm not going to be there.
I would be happy to cancel that meeting since we're doing a special. Anybody else wants to weigh in on that?
Chairman George, I could go either way. I just don't want to be the chair.
Okay. I do think thought it might come down to something like that. Okay, and I know that, again, that would be Megan Lally's last regular meeting, she's already recused herself on the basis of screen time, so it looks like it might be difficult to conduct the meeting, even if there were a quorum. So, I'll ask, I guess, for a motion to cancel and we'll take it from there.
Move to cancel the June 7 regular meeting of the IWWC. I'll second.
Okay, so we've got a motion from Hallisey, a second from Larson to cancel the June 7 regular meeting. Roll call vote. Halsey? Aye.
Larson? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Smith? Aye. And all abstain. So the motion carries four zero one. So I guess our next regular meeting will be look here, it would be July 13. Hopefully, my vision will be all sorted out by that time. We'll have some important work to do regarding membership and election of officers. I hope somebody out there is going to be willing to be vice chair, And I'll look forward to seeing you all then. For now, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn.
Okay, motion by Larson, second by Halsey. All in favor, say aye, raise your thumb, or say aye. Being adjourned at 08:21PM. We can now leave the meeting. Care. Bye, everybody. Good luck with your surgery, George. Live long and prosper. You as well.