Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting
April 6, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Can all the questions raise your hand if you can hear me? Okay, great. All right, so then at 07:01, Chairman Megan Lally, I'm going to call the April 6 regular meeting of the town of Andover Inland's Wetlands and Water Courses Commission meeting to order. Everyone, this is Amanda Gibson. I'm the admin assistant to the town of Andover. I just wanted to take a moment to share sad news that we have lost a dedicated commission member, Rick Osborne. He unfortunately has passed away. Very sad news. We would like to just take a moment of silence to send some love to his wife Karen and family and thank him for his time. Okay, thank And if you need anything throughout the meeting, please let me know. But I'm going to mute myself and let you all continue on. Okay,
This is my first go at sharing a Zoom meeting so thank you all in advance for your patience as I figure out what I'm doing. I am going to briefly pull up the agenda if I am successful. Let's see. Can all see the agenda? Yes. So That's that's looking good. That's good? Okay. Thank you for the feedback. All right. So the first order of business is the approval of minutes. Everyone should have received a copy of the March 2 regular meeting minutes.
So this is Jed and I'd make a motion to approve the March 2 meeting minutes. Ed Smith second.
Any discussion? I had two minor edits to suggest on page four under item 6A. Let's see, it's the paragraph that begins with S. Nichols. It says Mark Williams estimation and that should be excavation. And then on page five, there's a paragraph, the second paragraph under six C looks like it was up accidentally duplicated. It's already under six B so that paragraph can just be struck the second paragraph under six C.
And I didn't have any other comments on the minutes.
Any further discussion? I see you all not having much luck. Okay, then hearing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote and I think we'll do votes by roll call. So commissioner Larson. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Smith, have you vote on the motion to approve the minutes? Aye. Can you hear? Yes, now I can. Thank you. I vote aye as well. I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting, I apologize. Commissioner Halsey is serving as the wetland agent at tonight's meeting. So he will not be voting. So the motion carries four zero zero. All right. Next item on the agenda is item 2B approval of the March 7 special meeting minutes.
I'll move to approve. This is George Elliott moving to approve the minutes of the special sidewalk Saturday, March 7. Jed Larson will second. Any discussion?
A question I had on those is since I think Jim was there as the wetland agent, George and I were the only two there and that didn't constitute a quorum. So I didn't know if it was a meeting or not. Point well taken.
And if it's not a meeting, do you need minutes? So I guess having what we have is good, but I was concerned about the procedural accuracy of only having two members there to have it be a meeting. And I don't know the answer to that.
Linda or Amanda, do you know the answer to that question?
Oh, it's not we didn't take any official action. So it's somewhat of a moot point whether we had a quorum or not.
Linda, did you have a comment? I don't think it's a legal meeting, but you could use them as notes. You didn't do any any way like they were saying. So Okay. Should we motion to approve them then? I think we should. Okay.
Then we'll just proceed with the motion. Okay, so any further discussion? Okay, then hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Commissioner Smith, how do you vote? Aye. And I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. Thank you. All right. So we will move on to item three a under enforcement. This is carried over from last month's meeting. We had asked, Jim serving in the capacity of wetlands agent to follow-up with Mr. Haggerty regarding the placement of hay bales to control, sediment transport from the site. Agent Halisey, can you comment on that?
I did visit the site over the weekend and the hay bales were in place on either side of the crossing. So let's brush to remove. If you may remember he had, He was cooperating from back surgery and he would get to that later in the spring. And he confirmed that we did have a conversation with him midweek. Last week. We're going out there and he indicated he would hear that.
Thank you. Do you feel that it warrants further follow-up or can we remove this item from the next month's meeting?
Seems to me it should stay on there until the brushes move. Hopefully that will be the next month.
Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to item three B under enforcement. And there should be a correction to the agenda. The correct address should be 28 To 8 Shotty Mill Road Agent Halsey, can you provide report?
I did not follow through with this. I had access to town hall has been very limited. It's prevented me from doing a few things and this was one of them, but I should be able to take care of it in the next few days. Thank you. I was gonna get a litter out just making them, the owner aware that they were in violation. There's currently no work going on. I do for the work and they just wanted to address that. Rachel wanted me to address that upfront proactively.
Okay. That brings us to item three c on the agenda. Mr. Baum and Ms. Nichols, there was a cease, excuse me, an order to remediate issued on 02/24/2020 regarding the deposition of material into a wetland without a permit at 41 or 87. As a result of the show cause hearing held at last month's meeting, that order was upheld. Has any action been taken since last month's meeting?
Yes. I contacted a gentleman that was representing Mr. Bohm and has had conversations with Ms. Nichols, the engineer surveyor, and he agreed to speak to Sandy Nichols about the matter, they would go about having the work done and reset the pins. She seemed amenable to that. And I sent a letter at the request of the chair to have Ms. Nichols or the owner of the property, perhaps her husband, give permission to Kurt or his agent to enter the property, take care of work that needed to be done. And she indicated that she was in contact with her attorney would be writing a letter at some point. I I haven't seen it as of yet. We should follow-up.
I can follow-up. I can try and get I can get a hold of her. Yeah.
Hopefully it won't be needed. But if it were to go to court, there is a maximum of a thousand day penalty fine since the date of the order for correction. I will contact her.
Mr. Bohm, did you wish to say anything? Can unmute you.
I was just talking with Jim and I was just waiting for the letter. He told me not to go forward with anything until I received the letter. So I've just been waiting for communication between Jim, the town or whatever. Mean what's from what's going on I know things have been held up. So I just, I don't know where to go at this point. We're ready to go. I'm just waiting for the green light from you guys.
Thank you. Yeah, we'll follow-up with Ms. Nichols to get the written permission access so that we can complete the order. Okay. Any further discussion on that item? Okay. Then we will move on to item three d under enforcement. Also Mr. Boehm, on his property 33 Route 87, construction in an upland review area and deposition on material into a wetland without a permit. A notice of violation was issued previously regarding this activity. Mr. Baum has since filed a application for a permit to leave the structure in place with some modifications listed under item 4A of the agenda. We can discuss that permit application now. Were any of the commissioners on the call not present at the February 8 site visit to the property? I believe we were all present. Okay. I was present. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So I did I had asked mister Vaughan previously regarding whether there was preconditioned photos available, and he had suggested that we take a look at Google Earth.
So I did go ahead and do so and I am attempting to share that with you right now if I can figure this out. Can you see a map with an aerial photo on your screen? Yes. Yes.
So the first image here depicts roughly preconditioned conditions. Does my cursor show up on your screen? Yes. Yes. Alright. So this is the, I would estimate the approximate location of the existing shed, for which the permit application has been submitted. And then I'm going to scroll down. This was the imagery currently available on Google Earth. You can see over here is the location of the shed just to give people perspective. So this area does appear that it was previously paved. I just wanted to point that out to the commission. Any questions on those photos before I pull up the application?
Can you go back and show the previous one so we can see that it was paved in the past? Yep,
so rough approximation of the boundary there. Believe the property line is the stream channel and this looks to me to be about the stream channel. This would be just to give a sense. All right. I will try to pull up the application next. Can everyone see the application? Yes.
Okay. Alright. So just walking through the application. Fees were paid in association with this application submitted by Mr. Baum for the address noted 33 Route 87. So as I understand the application it's to leave the shed in place in its existing location with the additional amendments noted here. For the audio record, under product description, the application states we are going to put down stabilization fabric on the backside of the shed wrapping around the left side of the shed following six to eight inch rock to lock it in, seeded and hayed the exposed soil using minimum excavator.
Megan, can you hear me, Megan? I can. Yes. I had paid, a land engineer. He actually came out. I said I brought the application application in. I don't know if you have that, but, he recommends recommends moving the shed three to six feet forward.
Alright. Let me see if I can pull that up for you.
And the the filter fabric he wants, he said the filter fabric is good, but he wants the one that has like a it's, more reinforced what they would kinda like what they use on the highway so it doesn't tear. But he he he just just breaks it down better on his his recommendation.
Okay. So if there is contradicting information, we should refer to the February 26 letter from Bushnell Associates? Yeah,
only thing that really changed was basically he wants us a little bit more durable filter fabric on the back. Suggests moving the shed three to six feet forward so we could build a platform on the back to actually build the rocks. That way there there's like a platform instead of it just being a hill. He said it would sit better.
There's anything that we should point out. I'm gonna pull back up the aerial photo if I can. Sorry. I'm getting pop ups all over. Let me share. Okay. So just so I understand, is it proposing to move the shed this way back towards the the main driveway? Correct. Three to six feet forward, correct. Okay. So with that information, I'll open it up to discussion among the commissioners, if I can find you all again. Here you are.
I may, this is Jim and I have a comment. Early on, I was concerned about the zoning aspect of the shed. I know this is the wetlands commission meeting. I was worried that the commission would be entertaining a proposal that might be in violation of zoning and it appears that that is not the case. Whether it's moved or not, doesn't matter. It's the setback requirements either way. Just in case anybody remember that as an issue, I just printed put that out there. I did. Any additional discussion?
I had a question of if the area had been previously paved why did we build up all this material to set the shed on it so close to the watercourse as opposed to just leaving it on whatever paved material we had there previously?
Is that a question for me? All right yeah can you reply Mr.
So the driveway never really was cut or anything so the driveway still remains what it remained. All we did was is just when you put a shed down you're supposed to put, some sort of material underneath it to stabilize it to level it out. So all we did was just level it out a little bit, and then we started putting we were starting to put some rocks around the backside. We never finished, because we got well, I got the the the, the letter of the violation, which I stopped. And then I didn't realize that it was not a ceases not a cease and desist order. We could have kept going to finish it to to fix it but, I chose to stop just so you guys can see where we're at and what we were looking to do,
and what we were planning on doing to, stabilize it. But, all the sheds you're every shed that you put down you're supposed to put like some kind of stabilization, material underneath it even if it's on a driveway to, to stabilize the shed. So it was a decent amount of land there so I figured it wasn't much. There's probably maybe like maybe 10 feet behind it that we just kind of had to just level up a bit to level the shed on. I just utilized that but like I said we could move it through to six feet forward. I just have to cut part of the driveway and slide it forward and just put a little bit of the packing material down which is required for the shed to set it on. That's all.
So I just want to give a point of clarification. A cease and desist order was not issued because you did comply with the commission's request to stop. You had corrected, would have been issued.
Correct. I misunderstood the form. So it wasn't on you. It was me on misunderstanding what the form meant and what it was because I've never received one of these before. I've never been in this position. So I stopped because I thought it was that I didn't know it wasn't.
All right. So the application, it doesn't state it outright, but essentially what you're asking is to leave the volume of fill that was placed in the area in the wetlands as well because that's necessary to keep the shed in its current location correct?
Correct. Okay. If if it has to be moved through if if if if it stays where it's at and we're able to reinforce the bank, yes. If you guys, decide that you want it moved three to six feet forward, then some of that material will be removed to build, a platform at the bottom like almost like a shelf so we could build, so when we put the, filter fabric down we can build the rocks on that and build it up the bank. So some of that material will also be removed.
Is there any well, I guess your engineer said move it three to six feet forward. I was just wondering if we could move it further forward than that even. The photos, well, from the site visit, I was surprised to see the amount of buildup material under the shed and how close it was to the incline going down into the watercourse. And I would think that the more of that material we could get out of there, the better off it would be for the wetlands and the watercourse.
So Mr. Bohm, can you remind me of the dimensions of the shed? It's 12 feet wide, 32 feet long.
Okay, and do you have a sense for the size of your driveway in this area?
I do. If you look where your cursor is, if you go towards the shed a little bit, it's kind of like white, it's like sand right there. That's about the six foot mark going forward ish, give or take a foot. But that would be about six feet going forward because we did put a tape measure out there to see how far forward it would have to go.
What I'm wondering is can the shed be moved to the existing pervious footprint or impervious footprint, excuse me, that was on the property? Is it possible to relocate the shed in the previously paved area?
Where? If I go forward, you're gonna take up the rest of the driveway, I wouldn't be able to get in.
Well, that's the question for you. The alternative would be to remove it off the property entirely. So we're looking for solutions, I think to move it out of the wet loan location.
There's no other place to really bring it. I mean, I could bring it forward but I mean how far forward are you looking to go?
Commissioner Smith, my memory serves me right, there was a lot more than three feet of fill of large rocks back behind there. I would definitely think it's got to go more than six feet forward to remove that fresh fill that was put in.
I'm going to share the site visit photos to help with this discussion. Can everyone see, I don't know what you see on your end. Can you see the full site photo? Photo number one. Yes. Okay.
I'm trying to move things out of my way. Okay so photo number one is Commissioner standing on the back side of the shed. You could see Route 87 in the background and the stream that we're discussing off to the photo left towards the bottom, for orientation purposes. So it was our understanding based on the site visit that the bulk of this material had been, placed on-site to accommodate the shed. Another photo looking back that I'm looking for. I guess not. Sorry about that. That might be the best perspective we have. This is the other photo I was looking for. So this is, to your back as you're facing the photo would be Route 87 for orientation. Then that's the the corner of the shed in the upper left of the photo
and then the the film material in the the foregrounds of the photo.
This is Commissioner Larson. And again, it's easy to talk about what might happen because I don't have to do any of the work. But I would think that the best solution would be to bring it forward about 10 feet and rotate it 90 degrees so that shed is parallel to the driveway as opposed to going too close to the embankment and then we could protect the wetlands and get all that material out of there. And so I guess that's what I think to keep the shed on the side of the driveway that it is, that would be the method to make the minimal impact on the watercourse.
Think I'm ready to entertain a motion if anyone would like to make a motion. It should pertain to the application as it's currently presented and the existing conditions.
We drafted some motion for this application or alternative motions for this application?
We have not. Perhaps we can simplify it. So the alternatives to what's presented, that haven't been shared with us are not the responsibility of the commission to figure out necessarily. So our job is to decide whether or not to approve this permit, to approve it with modifications or conditions, or to deny it.
Well, that's why I thought the, land engineer, I thought his letter, if he went out and looked at it to see if it was okay or not and he he what he suggested to do, that's why I was trying I thought that would help determine if it was okay or not okay for from his expertise.
Thank you Mr. Brown. Comments were actually directed at the commissioners. Oh I'm sorry I apologize. That's okay I'm gonna put you on mute so that the commission can discuss. Okay yeah Ed, are you muted? I'm gonna unmute you. Sorry. Don't know how you got muted.
Well this is Larson again and I certainly don't feel comfortable approving the application that we have
oh that's right So what we can do is make a motion to approve and then you can vote in the negative if you so choose. Way we've made an action.
Or I guess we could move to deny because we haven't seen other alternatives that that are more protective of the wetlands?
A failed motion to approve the application is a legal decision. A motion to deny that does not pass is not a legal decision. Okay.
So it's preferable to make a motion to approve the application and vote to reject that motion as opposed to the other alternative.
Then I will make a motion to approve the application. Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Thank you both. Any discussion?
I would like to know exactly which conditions of the application and its attachment from Bushnell Associates are relevant here. Are we considering the attachment from Bushnell Associates part of the application here?
Yes, it should be considered part of the application. So the application as currently presented is to move the shed six feet, I believe it is. I'll bring that document back up for everyone to look at if I can. Can you see the Bushnell Associates document? Yes. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. So the current proposal, the application is to basically place a shed at the site but six feet to the north of the current location of the shed So this is essentially the application.
A question. Item number four, is that referring to the removal of all those large boulders from behind the shed filling in the bank and bank man. That's a question for Mr. Bohm.
Yeah. On the right hand side, those large boulders that were on the side in the corner there that we were looking to remove. Those are to remove those and the large boulders on the backside so when we move the shed forward six feet we can basically make a platform at the bottom to put the filter fabric down and then we could put the riffraff up the side of the bank.
Now that's the picture I'm looking at all that fresh rock that's all gonna come out? Correct.
So this entire area is going to be restored back to its previous condition?
The rocks are coming out from the side of the bank, correct? Is this gonna be dirt?
The third thing I have a question too because under the boulders, that's also fill that's filling in the embankment. Is that Yeah, gonna be a steep the boulder going down. The rocks going down in that bank right there. Yeah, including including the fill underneath the boulder rocks. Are you talking about this area? Yeah. Correct. Yes.
Linda, do we have a motion on the floor? Yes. We do. Yes. Are you able to repeat it back? Just have that, Jed. Jed Larson moved to approve the application of Kirk O'Him for review area. Ed's got seconded it. You.
This is Larson again. Having made the motion, I find that it would be difficult to act on that motion without doing another site visit and taking a look at specifically the photos are good but I can't determine whether there's more prudent alternatives or not. And it's just unfortunate we're put in a position that we weren't able to preclude us from being put in this position but that's not our problem either. Just don't
So our job is not to solve the problem just to relieve you of that burden. Imagine the site as it was prior to the placement of the fill and the shed and are we voting to approve that? Are we voting to approve the activity that happens with the modification of the shed instead of where it's currently situated is going to be six feet closer to the main residence and the fill that's been noted would not be present. Does that help? Yes. Okay. All right. Any further discussion?
This is Elliot. I think that the proposal, the applicant, and again, the proposal from Bush, is sufficient to mitigate the violation and to give an adequate location for the shed. It may not be ideal, but I think it's a little late in the game to come in with further considerations about, well, what might be. We had a site visit. We had the opportunity to consider that location. And I think that it would be remiss to put on further conditions, at this time. I think that we should approve the permit, as it is stated.
I would state that if this application had come before us, given that there's already several secondary structures on the property to support the residents and the volume of fill that's been deposited including that which is to be removed regardless of whether it's the volume currently in place or proposed to be left in place along with the size of the shed in the wetland area and the upland review area, I'm hard pressed to believe the commission would approve such an application.
Commissioner Smith, to verify what Commissioner Elliott said, was Commissioner Elliott saying we should mitigate the changes that were made before we look to approve? I couldn't hear everything that Mr. Elliott said.
I'll try to recapitulate. I have a poor internet connection here, of which I am continuously reminded by little pop ups on my screen. I think we should approve the permit application with the mitigation and with the steps that are proposed in the communication attached from Bushnell Associates.
I'm concerned about setting a precedent. I'm concerned that approving a structure in a wetland area that I really don't believe we would have approved, will set a precedent that is not one that I want to set for the town. I don't believe we would have approved this application if it hadn't been constructed before we were made aware of it. I don't think the volume of fill, the impact that it physically has on the wetlands is sufficient. I don't think it was necessary. I think, you know, it wouldn't be a hardship to the property owner to not have allowed this structure. I I have concerns about approving it as presented. And we haven't so we're discussing the application right now. The other piece, there there is a violation in place here. So it's kind of mixed together. But if there wasn't an application in place, I think we'd be talking about a cease and correct order. So keep that in mind. We move the vote then.
Any additional discussion? Okay. So the motion then is to approve the permit as presented including the find the the document date. Excuse me. The 02/26/2020, addendum provided by Bushnell Associates, addressed to mister Kurt Bohm, as presented to the commission. Motion was made by Jed Larson, seconded by George Elliott. I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? No. Thank you.
Commissioner Smith, how do you vote? No. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott, how do you vote? Yes.
Thank you. I vote no as well. The motion fails to carry one three zero. Permit is denied. So that leaves the in the violation in place. Agent Halsey, do you have any guidance for the commission?
Not at this time. Much of the Bushnell Associates plan addresses remediation. Perhaps it could be modified to simply exclude the shed.
I would motion that we issue a cease and correct order and allow Mr. Brown the opportunity to present a restoration plan to the commission. Does the motion have a second? Larson will second. Any discussion? Would you please repeat the motion?
I motion that the commission direct them acting as the agent, agent Halsey to issue a cease and correct order, for the violation at Route 33 I'm sorry, 33 Route 87, basically, following up on the notice of violation that was issued previously and asking mister Baum to present a correction plan to the commission. And will that include relocation of the shed?
It would include removal of the structure from the the wetland. Okay.
Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Larson? Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Smith? Oh, you're muted. Sorry. Hold on. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. So motion carries four zero zero. Agent Halisey, can you work with, attorney Brantz to draft that order? Yes. Thank you. Alright. Let's move on to item three e on the agenda. There is a a violation that was brought to the commission's attention at 129 Hebron Road. Agent Halisey, can you, provide the commission with an overview?
Yes. The owner of the property is is basically dug a trench along the front property which is Hebron Road and I believe it is the north side of the property, so it would be the left left side property facing the street. It's approximately three feet deep, and he has put a footing in at least a portion of it. The trench on the between the property line, it is a butter, runs back to an intermittent water course and what appears to be wetland soils. And there's concern among among the neighbors. What is, what he's like to do is build a, some sort of fence wall combination. Concrete wall extending above grade I believe. Pretty significant
trenching. Seems to, seems to die just before the water course, at least in this picture. Megan, did you see, did you see it different than that?
No, I did visit the property today. The neighbor at 125, granted the commission permission to go out and view it. And I I was having trouble understanding the situation from the photos that were presented. So I I chose to to visit it this afternoon in order to be able to lead the discussion. There is currently very little disturbance to the intermittent stream channel. They have what appears to be a string basically indicating where the extent of the trench might be. That's what it seems. But the trench is not at this point dug to the stream channel without delineating wetlands. We can't say whether or not it is dug through wetlands, but it's definitely within the 100 foot upland review area of the stream. So a cease and desist order is going to be issued to allow the property owner an opportunity to come before the commission
on the evening of the fourteenth to explain their activity and what their plans are for future activity on the property and determine whether or not they need a wetlands permit.
Has been drafted. It hasn't been set. Actually just got the information. It's a virtual meeting, I had to get a meeting number and such. And I just got it
prior to the meeting evening. Let's see if I had another photo to share. Did you get the pictures I sent? I had
trouble with getting emails from you today, so I don't think I got emails from you. I'm trying to find I think this is the aerial photo of the site, the property. I don't know if that's helpful. This was previous conditions. It doesn't show the current activity, of course. I Jim correct me if I am wrong, I think the current trench and fence operation basically follows the property boundary. And I'm having trouble seeing it on this map because it is intermittent, but if I had to estimate, I think the stream channel is about here the extent of the trench at this point is I say, because this is their driveway. I think it was it was about to this point. So there there had been some activity, but not not trenching itself, through the wetlands at this point. So I don't think there is any action for the commission to take at this time. Just notifying you that there was multiple citizen complaints and agent Halsey did investigate and that an order is going to be sent out as a result and we'll have a show pause hearing to follow-up on that.
Any discussion? Hearing none then, we'll move on. We addressed item 4A already, so we'll move on to agenda item four b, application number IWWC20Dash18 by mister Von Actorberg for a shed construction in an Upland review area at 233 Route 6. See Mr. Ron Achtenberg is on the call. Amanda, can you go ahead and unmute him? Did we lose him? I thought he was on the call. Sorry. My people my people juggled. Thank you. Yeah. Still here now. Perfect.
Head shifted. Okay. So the commissioners should have all received a copy of your application at the previous meeting. I did send it out again electronically prior to this meeting, and I believe a sidewalk was held on March 7, which was attended by George, Jeb, and Jim as we just approved in the minutes. George, do you want to give a summary of the site walk for those that weren't able to attend?
Okay. We visited the site. Do you have any aerial or any other photo documentation for that?
Let me see what I have to pull up. I did not receive any photos from the site visit itself, but I can share the wetlands application, hopefully. Let's see. Okay. You see the application? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
And there is a photo of the site further down in there. This one? Yep. Right. Sorry. Jumping around on me.
At the last meeting, provided you a printed copy that was more easy to read than this. You did. Apologize.
It didn't get scanned in. But is it correct that this is about the driveway? Your driveway is kind of a loop around Yes. The Okay. Then the location of the proposed shed is here? Correct.
Okay. All right. So with that, George, can you summarize any significant observations during the site visit?
Right, well, I think what we noted was that there's a fairly steep slope, steeper than it appeared on the gradient, from the location of the shed to the water course below. The location was obviously chosen for access via the driveway in the parking area above the cursor in the image on screen. And we could see where the footings would go. The holes were already dug for the footing for the proposed shed. Think the correct me, I'm just fine if I'm wrong, but I believe that there was some consideration about load bearing of the driveway and pad area in front of the shed that led you to select that location as opposed to locations further along the driveway that were softer and less accessible. That's correct.
Okay. So that's about all I can recollect. I don't know if Jud or Jim have any further to say.
Is there, so the shed is not in a wetlands itself, correct? It's just in the Upland Review area? Correct.
Okay. Is there any concern that the structure would cause physical impact to the wetland or the watercourse? Is that question for me, Megan? If you would like to address it, sure.
Yeah. I did have a concern that the edge of the roof would be towards the stream. It's a pretty considerable trucker. I believe 16 by 32. So assuming that half of that roof is draining to the back. I would just recommend sort of mitigation. Form of on standing past.
Would it be okay to divert the water from the shed roof, say a gutter? If it's a pitch roof, towards the wetland, then a gutter collection and downspouts to divert the water back towards the, covered area or at least to the level area rather than straight down slope.
I would think you're just creating water problems for for the applicator in the driveway in area. I I'm not a big proponent of gutters. They they sort of concentrate a problem. Most sort of letting water dissipate naturally.
So is there opportunity to put either vegetation or stone or something to control the storm water from the roof runoff?
I think stone would be appropriate. Yes. Extending past the drip line. Storage. Is that possible, mister Von Akkerberg?
Yes. I don't see any problem with that. I'm not sure how much stone you're referring to. This is new to me, so I'll need a little direction from you on that. Or what size of stone? Okay, I can do that. Thank you.
Any additional questions of the applicant? Okay, hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.
I'll move to approve the application, IWEC20Dash18 for a shed construction at 02:33 Route six. Smith second.
Is that Ed seconded? Yes. Thank you. Okay, any discussion?
I thought agent Helsley's comment about the roof running off the back was a good one and that should be a condition of approval. To put the stones in that he was talking about.
Are you looking for specific detail on the stone at this point or are you just giving to my discretion?
I think sufficient detail to be able to document emotion.
And I would recommend that the stone extend a minimum 12 inches past the drip line. Probably eight inches deep minimum. Thank you. Three quarter inch stone, one inch stone. Do we wish to amend the motion?
I'll move to amend the motion to include that condition for approval. Thank you, George. Do we have a second? Commissioner Smith seconds.
Good. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Elliott.
Are we voting on the amendment or on the amendment plus the motion?
Good question. Suppose Amendment. The amendment first and then the full motion? Aye to the amendment. Thank you. Judge, does that change your vote? No, it's still aye. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Aye.
Thank you. Chairman Lally, I vote aye as well to the amended motion or to the amendment to the motion. I will now, oh, so motion carries, excuse me. So the motion is amended by a vote of four zero zero. So now I'll ask for a vote on the amended motion to approve the application as presented with the conditions noted by agent Halsey to include stone at least, correct me if I'm wrong here, eight inches deep and 12 inches out past the drip line. Okay. So, I'll call for a vote again. And I'm just going in order of your photos. I apologize if it's not for seniority or anything like that. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Thank you. And chairman Lawley, I vote aye as well. So the permit is approved by a motion of four zero zero with the commit, conditions noted. All standard conditions apply as well. Mister Van Actorberg, why don't you follow-up with agent Halsey, and then you can go from there. Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is item 4C, application number IWWC twenty-nineteen submitted by Andrew Dayan for, a septic system repair, which is essentially a new septic system installation in an Upland Review area at 159 Lakeside Drive. Is anyone representing this application on the line? See mister Carbone. Yes. I'm here. Paul Carbone.
Yeah. I believe so this application was received by the commission at our last meeting and we asked agent Halsey to visit the property and provide a report back to the commission.
Okay, I did meet with Mr. Carbonneau on-site. Relatively large lot. And Let's it's Looked pretty mild slope towards the lake. Pretty straightforward, a lot of open area. I did ask him to submit a revised. Site plan showing some erosion and sedimentation control. Let's see. I know we did.
Me see if can pull this up. Is this the correct document? I'm sorry I'm looking for the revision. Don't
I think unfortunately Jim you had tried to forward it to me and I couldn't access the attachment. Okay. I had tried to email both you and Mr. Carbonneau prior to the meeting but I did not obtain that file. I don't know Amanda, any chance do you have it?
Okay. I had emailed it to Susan and the building this I think it was yesterday or today and I think Jim has it as well.
Yeah that's apparently the document that didn't open for Megan's.
There was no email now to see if there's any change but I don't think so. For some reason, Amanda, when emails are sent with attachments as a forward, it doesn't seem too forward. Do you want to try to forward it to me right now? Are you asking me to do that or Jim?
My email is admin assistant. Amanda, are you asking Jim or mister Harbinoff? Either or.
I think Jim has it, so he should be able to forward that to you.
I actually don't know how I would find it right now.
So if you would like to send it to me, my email is admin assistant. Hold on. Adminassistant@andoverct.org.
I apologize. I'm just changing over from computers and and
I just typed it in the group chat for our meeting. Alright. So alright.
Okay. I just received Megan's. I just forwarded what Jim sent, so I don't know if you see any attachments. I'm sorry were you talking to me?
Is it the septic repair proposal? Is there an attachment in the email?
I'm trying to find that to forward it to you. Is this it?
I don't have I don't I'm not on Zoom. I was not able to get out to Zoom, so it's I would not be able to tell you. But, Jim thought Jim, does she have the right one? Oh, Goddamn it. I'm trying to find it on my email. Jim, can you see my screen? Yes. Is this the correct sketch? Can I see it? Are you saying?
Jim, can you see it? Yes. I can see it. Is this the correct one?
Yes, it is. Okay. I was looking for the fence, yeah. So, appears to be fine.
So the thing that's changed on there, Jim, is the addition of the silt fence. It's
the only change that I asked for, yes. Okay, yep. The only other issue and I I really think it's I don't think it's particular concern is. There's some water that comes through a pipe under the driveway. Which should the commission approve it. They might wanna just allow for some stone to be placed there. I don't think it's a big issue. I don't think a lot of water comes through that pipe because there's no scouring at the outlet. You orient me, is this the driveway? I don't see you're up. You know I am used to Amanda, can you?
Where it says select sand fill package? At the bottom of the image? Yes so right above there there's an outlet. That arrow was placed there for I don't even know if that's it. I'm not sure that's an arrow. Doesn't it doesn't appear that very much water comes through that outlet at all. Again, based on a lack of any scouring. No, no evidence. It just was concerned when I was there. It was a possibility. Perhaps put some action there needed, or at least provided if it becomes apparent that it's needed. Nothing that can be done in in the field. Doesn't need to be on a plan.
Does the commission have any additional questions of the applicant or of agent Halsey regarding his visit to the site? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Did someone say something?
I will move to approve the permit application, item eight 3C twenty-nineteen for septic system repair reconfiguration with the conditions modified in our discussion, the addition of the silt fence to the property outline.
Is there a date on the revised map that we can reference? I'm sorry. Is there a date?
On the map. Amanda, do you still have it up on your screen? Is there a date on that map?
I don't have access to the map right now. I have to go through my emails to get that. Does Jim have it? You're looking for the date?
I think, yeah, Amanda's trying to pull it back up for us so we can see. Yeah.
Okay. So the date seems to be the same as previously. So we'll just make a note that it's still dated November 2019 but with updates yeah it was updated this past couple of weeks Do we have a second on the motion? Larson seconds.
Any discussion? Hearing none, I will call for a vote. Commissioner Larson. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. Aye.
Thank you. And chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. The permit is approved by a vote of four zero zero.
Now I do have a question. When the construction project starts and the silt netting is placed, does that have to be approved before they start any of the digging?
May ask you to me heads up on it and yes I mean if I'm not available I'm gonna hold the project up but yeah I should have the opportunity to inspect it. Yes. Okay. Yep. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Oh, go ahead, John. Yeah, I would
look at it periodically through the course of the project. I mean, I'm sure it's not gonna take that long. You know, might stop by. We
were looking to start the project the first week of May.
I mean, if it's approved this evening, that shouldn't be a problem.
Okay. Alright. And I'll be in touch with you, Jim. It was approved.
So mister, you'll receive a letter from the town that includes our standard permit conditions. I I failed to mention this to mister, Ben Aktenberg. It looks like he left the call, so I can follow-up with him, But it'll include all our standard permit conditions, which are in our regulations. May is fine because we need you to wait two weeks so the public can appeal our decision if they wish to do so. But yeah, if you can contact agent Halsey forty eight hours beforehand to make arrangements, I believe that's in the standard permit conditions.
Very good. I appreciate that. Thank you. No problem. Thank you.
All right. We will move on to item four d on the agenda. Application number IWWC20Dash20. This is a new application, presented by James Blair on behalf of the property owner. Jeff Maguire, I just wrote J on my agenda, I think it's Jeff, at 422 Lake Road for a wall reconstruction. And I did send this out electronically to the commission. Did everyone receive a copy? Yes. Yes. Did anyone not receive a copy? Okay. That is good. Mr. Blair, are you on the call? You are. We'll unmute you. I am here. Thank you. And thank you for waiting. You like to present the application to the commission?
Yes. We're going to basically tear down. I've got a picture up right now that I'm looking at that I taken up the property familiarize with Can you shrink this? It's over here, go to this.
Is that something you want the commission to see? Go to Zoom. No, and just kind of describing it. It's sort of a, they have a ramshackle wall at best, sort of stones just placed on the bank there, somewhat organized. And what's happening over time is the soil and the earth behind that with the lawn is is just kind of given out and you know it's sort of you know between being unsafe and then also not really good for the watershed the McGuire's would like to correct that and formalize it. So my proposal is to take down what's there, save those stones as best we can. We try to install a base to the best of our ability based on the height of the water at drawdown. And we're, our desire is to, once we're approved is to be able to do this job this year because of the extra drawdown that Andover Lake is gonna do. And so the lake would be about as far out as we can get it. And that's right around, you know, the beginning of November. So I, you know, we're arranging the schedule to make it all line up. So we're there when the lake is as far out as it can be, because there's not a lot of room to work. So we take down those stones, dig out the base, the base then is redone with, I use a stabilization mat, which is a woven geotextile, and that prevents that. And then we put crushed stone in there, inch and a quarter crushed stone and geotextile
prevents that from getting worked into the lake bed or being lost. So the integrity of the wall stays for quite a number of years for a very long actually. And then we restack that stone as needed and backfill correctly with crushed stone in a filter fabric to prevent any of the fine materials again, from the soils of the lawn, from eroding or being drawn into the lake, stabilizing it and making it safer, more attractive and better functioning as far as any unwanted soils getting into the lake. The other part of the proposal is to do a patio for a small fire pit area or something. I'm proposing 20 by 20. I don't know if we'd go that big, but that's a nice generous And the other thing that being such close proximity to the watershed, that would be installed as permeable so that the joints it's an open grade base, which means that it's crushed stone. And we'd go with a minimum of 12 inches for storage and pitch the base would be pitched away from the lake. We try to hold the water before it gets absorbed into the water table. And then the joints of those pavers are filled with a chipped stone to allow water to pass through and approval pavers, it's actually there's a couple of different companies that offer some really nice products out there and they do work very well. I've got quite a bit of experience
with this in Columbia. I actually did the Columbia Town Beach project back in 'seventeen and that's a great permeable paver and it really works well and helps to, know, again, eliminate runoff. So we're putting a paved surface, but yet we're not running off into the watershed or adding any phosphate load as much as possible. We're trying to mitigate that and renovate any of that runoff. So that's pretty much the project. Some standard things, although it's unique to this site because this is a different site, We're gonna put in silk fence, hay bales as needed to protect from runoff during the course of the project. It's gonna take probably anywhere from three to four weeks total from start to finish to get this done. Once we're there, we will not leave the site. We'll have a crew there working all the time because it's important to get this thing secured as best as we can before winter. I will use hay. There's a straw matting to roll actually. We're not going to be able to get vegetation unfortunately planting grass in December that will cool there. But we'll do the best we can with leaving the silt fence up and also using that straw mat secure and we'll keep track of it during the winter to make sure that we don't have any washouts or issues.
Thank you. I'm having trouble unmuting Jeff in case he wanted to say anything. Amanda, are you able to unmute him? We're here. No, we're here. We've just been listening.
Jim has been doing a great job. I figured I'd let him go.
That's fine. I just if you were screaming in the background that you wanted to correct something. No, no, no. No screaming, yeah. All right, fair enough. Okay, does the commission have any questions, Mr. Blair? Okay. So we are required to wait fourteen days after, receipt before taking any action on the application. Normally, would schedule a site visit. Commission's thoughts on that right now?
I agree. A site visit would be very helpful for me. So
I'm going to suggest that if we do a site visit that it's individually, as opposed to as a group, given the COVID nineteen concerns.
I would propose we do it as a group but 10 feet apart from each other so we can all hear the presentation at the same time and we'd all be hearing the same thing that we could then if we go different times we might each of us come away with a little bit of a different take. I
agree with Ed that I think we can do it safely maintaining the six feet separation or so, and it would be more convenient for whoever's showing us around to have us all be there at once. I agree with Ed.
I think for a small group, again, as Jed said
I believe the governor's requiring groups of five or Can we book five of us and 10 feet apart that's in excess of the recommended six feet?
So Mr. Blair and Suckman McGuire, what are your thoughts on a group presence at the property?
Well, the McGuire's have no objection, I would be happy to be there as I am the one that's gonna be directing the project. And, you know, the group of five, I think sounds like a pretty prudent suggestion. And then I would also myself, I would follow CDC guidelines and I'd wear some type of face covering myself, you know, whatever, just to be safe. So it's not a problem for me as long as the McGuire's don't object to it and the commission wants to proceed in that direction.
Amanda, can we unmute Jeff's line so we can hear from him? Thank you.
There we go. You guys are more than welcome to come over anytime. There is plenty of room that you can stay six feet apart and as long as Jim is available, I have no problem with you coming over anytime.
Jim Blair, I'm assuming? Correct. Okay. Agent Halsey, if you want to go separately, think that would be appropriate.
I have one suggestion. Would it be possible to just take out that patio? Put your action quarters so that it's clear where it's going. Yep. That'd be helpful for folks that are out there.
That's that's a that's a yeah, that that makes sense. That's not a problem.
Yeah, I would say to the extent that we can, I don't want to put anyone on the spot as far as needing to attend a group meeting? So to the extent that we can stake things out and allow for individual visits as well, I think that would be appropriate. I would also ask that site photos be taken and submitted through agent policy that we could share with the commission. Those tend to be very helpful for these types of projects. Do you need me to submit those photos?
If you would like to, I mean, you're you're probably, you know, best suited to be able to, you know, take photos that show what you wanna show to the commission.
Yeah, have a couple of pictures that I've taken with my phone that show the present conditions. So if that's what you're looking for, so those can be included or sent forward to you for the next meeting, I should say.
Yeah, that would be fine. And then if you are successful with staking out anything, maybe taking a photo of that for sharing. Sure.
I know we have, I personally have two people in my house that have underlying conditions, I'm a little bit paranoid about exposing them to anything. So I may choose to go separately myself. Does the commission want to set a date or time for the sidewalk?
As a suggestion, Saturday might a Saturday might work best for me. And
I could do first thing in the morning or, you know, whatever. However it works out.
So in case it's significant to anyone, this weekend is Easter weekend. I would say Jed, George and Ed if you want to pick a date because there's a good chance I'm just gonna go on my own and rely on photos.
I would be available this Saturday morning or the following Saturday if we're trying to avoid Easter.
Commissioner Smith can also make those dates that Mr. Larson said this Saturday is fine. 09:00 work.
This is Elliot and I will be available at 09:00 on the eleventh. That works for me. Good to go.
A site visit, 09:00 on, Saturday, April 11 to discuss the well, not to discuss don't discuss the application. To review the location details of the application. Okay. So if there's no further discussion on that, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is also, a new application, application number IWWC20Dash21, of Manuel Carrera, 12 Webster Lane. They're proposing a subdivision and associated new residential construction in an upland review area. Anyone on the call to represent that application? I suppose it's not a great way to ask people who are muted that question. So I don't believe there is anyone on the call. We did not receive the application fee yet for this application. The properties in the application do span the town boundary as well with the town of Bolton and we have yet to receive proof of notification to the town of Bolton as well.
We can discuss the application. I can ask Susan to follow-up. Jerry Hardisty was actually submitting the application on behalf of, the applicant to, to follow-up and make sure those items are, submitted before the next meeting. If there's any discussion or questions, we can relay those as well. Okay. I'm hearing none. We'll we'll take no action on that item at this time. Item agenda number five is public comments. We can unmute everyone, I guess. I'm not sure how to do this without being a free for all. Amanda. Everyone is unmuted except for Jeff and Linda. Which pretty much And I have Dave.
Much That only leaves Dave from, the public. I would say I lost my chat feature, but if there's a way to type in the chat box if you wish to give a comment. Okay. I'm gonna need a Zoom tutorial before the next meeting. Okay. Well, hearing none, I'm gonna move on. The last item on the agenda is to adjourn. I will entertain a motion. I move we adjourn. Alright. I believe someone told me we don't need to second these. I'll second.
Okay. I don't know if we do or not. Alright. So I will call for a vote. Assuming there's no discussion, commissioner Larson? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Thank you. Oh, hold on. Before we adjourn, I see I muted myself. Nothing to share. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Still no public comment. Alright. Continuing with the vote. Commissioner Elliott? Aye.
Thank you. And who did I forget? Just myself. I vote aye as well. So the meeting is adjourned at 08:33. Great job, Megan. Great job. Nice job, Megan. We survived. Good job, Megan. Thank you.