Meeting transcript
IWWC Regular Meeting
June 1, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Okay. All right. Then with that, this is chairman Megan Lally. It is Monday, June 1 at 07:03, and I'm gonna call the meeting of the town of Andover Inland Wetlands and Water Forces Commission to order. The next item on the agenda is roll call and seating of alternates. Chairman Megan Lally, myself present. I see vice chairman George Elliott is present. Commissioner Ed Smith is present. Commissioner and planning and zoning representative Jed Larson is present. Commissioner Jim Halsey is present but serving as our wetlands agent for the evening, and then alternate Wayne Thorpe is absent. Are there any additions or changes in order to the agenda?
Hearing none, we'll keep the agenda as posted. And we'll move on to item four on the agenda, approval of the minutes.
First item is approval of the Excuse me, Megan. I had a problem with my mute switch here. Jim, did we want to add a discussion on 84 Bear Swamp Road, or is that all taken care of?
I believe that it's taken care of. Did speak to Megan about it. Yes, I think it's taken care of. Okay. As far as it will be addressed, I believe.
Very good, thanks. Thank you. I think we can address it under item eight, agent report, if needed. Right. So, agenda item 4A, 05/04/2020 regular meeting minutes. The meeting minutes were posted online, and I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I move that we approve the minutes. Say again, Jeff. I make a motion that we approve the minutes. Okay. I will second the motion George Elliott.
Thank you. All right. So I have a motion on the floor to approve the 05/04/2020 regular meeting minutes made by Jed Larson and seconded by Vice Chairman Elliott. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I will call for a vote. We'll do it in roll call order. So, I'll vote last, vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Chairman Smith, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Chairman or commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And I, chairman Lally vote aye as well. So the minutes pass approval with a four zero zero vote. Alright. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the May 9 special meeting minutes, which was a sidewalk at 12 Webster Lane. Have these been posted
we're actually happen to have a website issue this past week, and I cannot post the meeting minutes and agendas page right now. But I just emailed them to everyone because George did send them to me earlier.
Can Are able to share them, screen share them? Yes.
Give me a minute. Okay. So I was able to post them to the wetlands page, And I am sharing them right now. Can everyone see that?
You can leave them still. We'll take a minute for everyone to review them and then I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.
This is Jed. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the special meeting sidewalk minute from Saturday, May 9. Okay. Do I have a second? George Elliott, seconding.
Thank you, George. All right. So there's a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Larson and seconded by Vice Chairman Elliott to approve the 05/09/2020 special meeting minutes Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I will call for a vote by
I just noted something there, Megan. I don't see you listed on the regular members present. Good point. I recommend that we add you.
I felt it was implied by the fact that chairman Megan Lowley called the meeting to order.
Perhaps for clarification, we can just spell it out under regular members present and repost. Any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I will call for a vote on the motion to approve the 05/09/2020 special meeting minutes, as presented with the modification that, chairman Lally will be repeated under, item two under regular members present. By chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Chairman Larson, how do you vote? Or I keep saying chairman. I apologize. Commissioner Larson, how do vote? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Smith, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. And I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. Okay. So the minutes from May 9 have been approved as well. We'll move on item number five on the agenda, public comment. And what's the best way to handle, receiving public comment?
Okay. So I will go one by one. Jerry Hardesty? Yes.
Would you like to participate in public speak? No. I'm here to talk. Okay. Kevin Arneson? I'm all set for now. Alright. Janus? No comment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Megan Phillips? Nothing for me. Thank you. Hank, would you like to participate? No, not at this time. Okay. Phil and Donna Phillips? No comments.
Thank you. John? John, would you like to participate in public speak? No comments.
Okay, Joan. No comment. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I think that's all.
Hearing no public comment, we will move on to the next agenda item, which is, item number six, permit applications. And we'll start with application number IWWC20Dash21, application by Manuel Correa for 12 Webster Lane, Bolton, Connecticut, a new residential construction in an upland review area. And there's been some confusion over this application, but we have confirmed final decision that it is a subdivision application. So it was noted in the meeting minutes from our May meeting, that it was not. So just for the record to clarify that it is in fact, a subdivision application. I believe we have,
Jerry Hardesty on the line. Is anyone else on the line representing the application? Any further comment that you would like to offer before we begin? Jerry you're muted I apologize. Jerry you're unmuted now.
Well I'm all done. I'm really ready to answer any questions you have. I think it's pretty straightforward. You've seen the proposal. Think it's like I said, I think it's pretty straightforward. We did go out and stake the location of the house after our special meeting so that you could see more precisely where it's intended. That's all I've got, really.
Can you explain the subdivision element, the final decision? I think you explained it while we were in the field on a site visit, but since it wasn't captured in the minutes, I'm wondering if you could just speak to that. Well, the
property itself is a little over four acres. Can support with the frontage it's got and the property it's got, it can support two building lots. The house that is existing has been refurbished, rebuilt, and the owner would like to see if he can get another building lot out of that.
And why was the proposed application not considered a precut?
Because this large lot was cut out of a bigger lot once upon a time right after subdivision regulations came into effect. The
commission did receive the materials requested since our May meeting which included details on the construction order, alternatives considered and reasons for rejecting notification to the town of Bolton. And as Jerry mentioned, we conducted a site visit on May 9. I did this evening actually, I went out to the site and took some photos to try and capture the locations of the stakes for those that weren't able to go since. And that was a document that I had sent you, Amanda, just prior to the meeting. I don't know if you're able to pull that out. So I just posted that. Would you like me to share this screen? Okay. Can everyone see that? Oh, it's got more. So
this is the first photo. It's photo number one in the PDF that was posted. I took this from the rear of the lot facing towards Webster Road. The red circles indicate the locations of the flag stakes that are out in the field. The fourth stake, which you will see in a minute in the next photo is just outside of the frame on the left edge of the photo. Just to give some perspective for those that have not been able to visit the property since it has been staked. Any questions on this photo before we move on to the next one? I couldn't capture all four. I was not able to get all four in one photo. Apologize but you can see the one flag that was not in the previous photo on this one where my finger is pointing. Is slightly outside of the frame there.
If we keep going to the next photo. This is moving slightly closer. Still from the rear of the lot facing towards Webster Lane. This is the property edge. And Jerry, I believe this was part of the septic system. Did you stake the corners of the septic system? I had a little confusion out in the field. No, I put four stakes out there and they were to represent the corners of the proposed house. Okay. So this might have been something else then. So if we go on to photo four. Alright. So this is looking, changing direction. So now we're looking, Webster Road to your back facing towards the rear of the property.
And I think that was the we're most stake that I observed. I don't know if you can tell from the photo Jerry.
Yeah, actually. Megan, I got to admit, I don't remember if I staked that septic system. May have I see a stake right here. Yes, right. And if that's not one of the four that was originally photographed, then it would represent the southern end of the septic system.
I think that was one of the rear house stakes. I think in the previous photo there might have been a stake associated with the septic system. Can you scroll down again Amanda? So photo five, was trying to just capture the test pit area. You can kind of see in the middle of the photo where there's some dug up area. That was the location of the test pits. And then is there one more photo? Okay. So then this is pretty much from the position of that last photo. Webster Road is at your back. You are facing the rear of the lot. Just showing those are the, I believe the rear two states that would be the, the back of the residence proposed just for kind of orientation perspective. Jerry, does that all seem right from Yes. Yes. This, this looks correct. Okay. All right. So I don't know if that's helpful to the commissioners that weren't able to revisit the site since our May 9 visit. Hopefully I apologize if it's not. And I will open the floor to discussion on the application by the commission. The commission have any questions of mister Hardisty that haven't been answered yet.
This is Jed. I did not have any other questions. Thank you, Jed. George Eliot, no further questions. No more questions from Smith.
Thank you. If there's no discussion and no further questions, I'll entertain a motion on the application.
Chairman Lyle, George Eliot, move to approve the application with conditions of a summary motion, which I expect you have prepared. I have not prepared a summary motion. Okay. Do you have standard well, just standard conditions to apply?
I do not. We could postpone the decision until next meeting and request that the agent come up with those materials.
Typically, we do end up amending the permit approval to include any stipulated conditions. If there are none forthcoming, then I will withdraw the motion.
Okay. So I will take that statement to mean your motion is withdrawn? Correct. Okay.
This is Jim Halsey. Can I address a concern I have at this time? Say that again, I'm sorry. I'd like to address a concern that I have. Absolutely. I mean, the application seems straightforward. No real problems. But the plan has shown it's two lots. And it's these plans are typically filed in the land records on approval, and the town clerk asked that I sign off on them. And what I'd like as a condition at this time as as the commission acts is just to make sure that that land shows it as both subdivision or in some way notes that it's not, they're not to approve lots. I've seen these in the land records and they give a false impression. Just wanna make sure that that doesn't happen. Simply asking for notation on the plan to that effect.
So are you saying it doesn't state on the preliminary plan that that's a proposed subdivision and so you want to make it clear in the record that it is? Yes, please.
Amanda, are you able to pull up that map from the application for the commission to look at? Which document is it in? I believe it's part of the application. I think it might have been the final page of the application. If not, I'm guessing it's that supplemental information page.
Okay, here we are. Just let me know where you would like me to zoom in.
Are you able to just make that your full screen? It is on my end.
I think if you click the triple dots up right below the x And then you click, where it says zoom over to the right, the square. Okay. Here we go. Is that better? Thank you. Yep. So I should note too for the commission on the agenda, the maximum action dates are the standard sixty five day, window for decision. It doesn't take into account the ninety day extension, that's available due to challenges associated with coronavirus. Even though it notes that the commission should be making a decision by June 10, that's not necessarily true. The commission has an additional ninety days if it needs it to process this application. There is also, think, I just reminded myself, because we've gone back and forth with the subdivision versus not, Jerry, do you know the final payment that's been made to the town for application fees at this point? Yes. You know what the total is that was paid?
$3.25, I think. I made two different payments, so I don't and they were far apart, so I don't remember exactly.
Because I think we went back to the initial application fee of $3.60 being due. And I was waiting for confirmation that that had been received by the town, but have not yet received it. Don't know if that's something you have access to Amanda.
I do not. That would be a Susan thing. Okay. Thank you. I
had a number of conversations or exchanges of emails with Jerry on the matter. And to the best of my knowledge, it's taken care of. But but I don't see checks. So I I mean, as far as actually coming in from that, he was certainly, he had asked me for the number and I'd agreed with him on a number 60 sounds right. Okay, thank you. Chairman Eilhart? Yes, Vice Chairman Eilhart.
Okay, I have a question for Agent Halsey. That's in reference to his letter of 05/06/2020 addressed to the applicant, Manuel Correa, and call the commission's attention to the information requested in the two three bullets in the body of the document. And I'm just checking to see if those conditions of application have now been satisfied.
I believe they were the letter dated May 22 that Mr. Hardesty submitted. Don't know if you want to speak to that Mr. Hardesty.
I believe we answered those questions, satisfied the requirements, yes. And I found a check stub that was dated also the twenty second that was for the difference in the initial application fee and what we finally determined was the appropriate fee. Chairman Nulli? Yes, Vice Chairman Nulli.
The letter that you referred to, I believe you said dated May 22. I'm not finding that in my materials, what I downloaded from the website. Amanda, are you able to pull that up? Okay. So which one was it? Believe it's the one. Yes. This one? Okay. It the letter?
Yes. I believe so. Can you click on it? Yes, that's the letter I'm referring to. Okay, thank you.
Hearing no motions on the floor from the commission at this point. I think it would be helpful to see the septic system staked out as well. I thought that was part of the request that had been made during the site visit. I don't know if the rest of the commission feels the same. Anyone would like to offer any feedback one way or another, that would be helpful.
Okay, I think I now have enough information. And again, it would just be for me a question of having the conditions to attach to the approval of the application.
Are you willing to put that in the form of a motion?
No, that's not a motion. It's an evasion of emotion.
I know it's not a motion. I'm asking if you'd be able to make a motion. No. Okay.
I'm trying to not make motions but I will go ahead and make a motion for the commission to consider. I would motion that we postpone decision on the application until our July meeting and request that the, location of the septic system be staked out in the fields for the commissioners to review and that, commissioner Halsey serving as wetland agent or if we do get another agent on board in the meantime, draft a summary motion with conditions of approval for the commission to consider at our July meeting. Jed will second the motion.
Any discussion? Hearing none, I will do my best to reiterate the motion which is basically postponed decision until our July 1 meeting. Request that Mr. Hardesty stake out the corners of the septic system in the field with the commission to review before that time. And if you could notify, both Jim and myself by email when that's done, So we can pass that on to the commissioners. And then, I'll work with agent Halsey, to come up with a summary motion and conditions of approval for the commission to consider. So I will do a vote by roll call. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Smith, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And chairman Lally, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. So we'll revisit this application at our July, meeting and hopefully make decision then assuming those two requests are carried out. So we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is item six B, application IWWC 20 dash 22, mister Yanzinski for a single family residence, deconstruction slash demolition in an Upland Review Area at 40 Townsend Road. If we can unmute mister Yanzinski. Hello. Hello. Is there anything before we begin discussion, is there anything further that you wish to share with the commission?
Well, the only thing that changed since the last meeting is, I met with, agent, Halsey, and, we took a look at the location determined where exactly to put in a silt fence for erosion protection, which is gonna be pretty much the area that is shown in the site plan that I submitted. I'm not sure if you guys can see it. Amanda, are you able to pull up that plan?
It's in the application. So the only thing that changed it, it is gonna be a silt fence and pretty much where the x's are. Sorry. Where where did you want me to Oh, scroll down. This one? This one. Regent Halesy do you have an additional comment?
Yes I did meet with Mr with the applicant sorry can't pronounce your name Jen, Jenus. That's fine. And the silt fence yeah we talked about where that would go and it's pretty much where he he showed it on the plan. We just wanted a little water a little more by working with the contours. Production sequences. Mean, he's taking this down by hand pretty much. It's gonna have pretty minimal impact. The only potential impact would be. We'll have a machine on-site towards the end of the process filling filling the hole, the foundation hole, I believe in his in his narrative he indicated that that material is coming from off-site, so there would be no disturbance that would come about as a result of the need to that fill. Pretty cut and dry and he does have a he has a schedule, has an incentive to finish by October 1. When the house is gone he doesn't have to pay taxes on it. I thought that that's a good good incentive to have. That's all I had. And I did discuss with him future plans and he's undecided as to where the house will go. So clearly that's another application should should it
fall under the purview of the commission. Well aware of that.
Thank you both. Does the commission have any questions at this time? Any discussion? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion.
Do we have a summary motion with conditions prepared for this application?
You do not have a summary motion. We do have the standard permit conditions that are included in our regulations that we can reference, but no special permit conditions have been prepared. And I have I can read if it would be helpful from a previous application, the the standard conditions.
I don't necessarily need that. Jim, do you have any other conditions that you would recommend that we put in that? Oh, I'm comfortable as enforcement agent with the conditions
that the regulations, the ones that are the standard conditions typically used.
You have any recommendations regarding the duration of the permit? It can be not less than two years, but not more than five years.
Mrs. Jett, I'll make a motion that we approve the application with the standard conditions of approval. Mrs. Smith, and I second?
Commissioner Larson, can you clarify in your motion the duration of the permit? The duration would be two years.
Thank you. Do you still second commissioner Smith? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor to approve the permit as presented with the standard permit commissions for a duration two years. Is there any discussion? Just to clarify, since I didn't just say it, commissioner Larson made the motion and it was seconded by commissioner Smith. And hearing no discussion, I will call for a vote on the motion to approve the application for a two year permit. I'll start with vice chairman Elliott. How do you vote? You're not muted, but we could not hear you. Aye.
Thank you. Commissioner Smith, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Larson, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. And chairman Lawley, I vote aye as well. So the motion carries four zero zero. The permit is approved with standard conditions. Work cannot begin for two weeks to allow time for the public to appeal the decision if they want. Commissioner Halisey acting as interim agent will follow-up with you and you will receive a copy of a written permit with those in the mail. The standard conditions are typically that you need to notify the agent forty eight hours before commencing any work. He needs to inspect the silt fencing and that needs to be installed to commencement of work. Those are really the big two things. All that will be in writing for you. Do you have any questions of the commission? Yes.
May I install the silt fencing prior to the two weeks or do I have to wait the two weeks before I do anything?
No. I think you could install it now. There yeah. It would just need to be inspected, closer to make sure it it hadn't been compromised in any way during that time. I understand. Thank you. You're welcome.
Okay. So if there's no further applicant or discussion on that application, we'll move on. The next item on the agenda is application IWWC twenty-twenty three. This is a new application that has been submitted since our May meeting for construction of a new residence in an upland review area at 57 Hendy Road. Is the applicant or any of the applicant's representatives on the line to present the application to the commission? Andrew Bushnell. I'm here. I'm the engineer.
Thank you. Can you walk the commission through the proposal?
Sure. So for the record, Andrew Bushnell from Bushnell Associates on the engineering land surveyor for this project. What we're proposing is the applicant's own two parcels here in Hendy Road. The subject parcel which is labeled as parcel to is a presently a vacant lot with just an existing barn structure. On it to the to the west side. And then they also own the parcel known as 57 Hendy Road, which is an existing house.
I'm gonna interrupt just one minute. Amanda, can you pull up the site plan? Okay.
Continue. Sorry. Okay. So as you can see, Parcel 2 is surrounds the 57 and the road site is it existing outside kind of a little bit of a unique situation for lack of figuration. But this is the way it's been for for many years since before the applicants purchased the property. The proposal is to construct a new single family slab on grade home on the easterly side of the vacant parcel to as you can see there with its own well septic system. You can see on the plan, you know, obviously we're bordering the Skunkumug River. The wetland limit was a field delineated by Johnny I from Island Soils and in a field located by my company Bushnell Associates maps here. The edge of the river is shown there. The the parcel is located in a flood area due to due to the river. You can see there's a limit of flood way on the map and the limit of the flood zone a, which from the FEMA mapping in the detailed study of the Skunkumug River was determined by elevation, field shot elevations out there. So, the flood way is the area of the floods that of the river that there's velocity in the water, the river, the flow of the river actually comes up to that point on the storm, theoretically, on calculations from the FEMA mapping in the study. The area between the limit of the floodway in the flood zone A is where the water would pond and be stored
during a one hundred year flood. Project would involve construction in that in that flood zone A area, the area between the floodway and in the flood zone A. Flood zone A elevations three twenty three fifty. And as you can see the grade in the proposed area construction is about a three twenty two. So to construct that house and to protect it from flooding, potential flooding, the house needs to be elevated above the existing grade to accomplish that. Typically, we go a foot above flood elevation. This house we're going two feet above. There's some information out there that suggests that FEMA is going to
at some point, revise this flood mapping based on larger rainfall data. You know, the storms are tend to be getting bigger for whatever reason, global warming, whatever. So they're going to raise the rainfall rates on the next revision whenever that occurs, which is going to raise the flood elevation too. So we hope by going two feet rather than one feet, one foot if the revision does happen at this house would still be out of harm's way of flood and above the new established flood elevation. Putting fill in to raise the house in the adjacent grade of the house to protect it from flooding takes away from the flood storage of the flood plain or reporting material into the flood plain area that's taking volume away from the flood plain. So we need to take fill out of another area on the property to make up for that fill, in the proposed house area. So to accomplish that, if you look on the westerly side of the property, you can see a shaded area there. We're proposing to take about 600 yards of material out of that area and transfer it over to the easterly area where the house is going to be constructed. So I think I should note at this point the 100 foot regulated area that's marked on the map from the from the field delineated field located wetlands. As you can see, the proposed house development activity, septic well, all that is outside of that regulated area. The fill removal to compensate for the fill placement in the house development area,
is within a portion of that is within the 100 foot upland review area of the delineated wetlands on the site, as can see. So the the fill would be taken out and the land slope back. Obviously, before started, the topsoil would be stripped and stored on-site. Material taken out, graded, topsoil put back area reestablished with lomid seed, mulch, silt fence installed on the downhill gradient during during construction, installation of any tracking pad at the existing driveway entrance that would be used onto this portion of the property to to obtain the fill and to truck it up Appendee Road to the easterly side of the site. The site now where the material is gonna be removed from is basically a open
field area with a few trees here and there scattered. The proposed house area is more of a wooded area on that on that side of the parcel. And if you were to if you were to extend this out, you would see this where Skunkumug and the Hop River intersect to the to the west, a little ways to the west. It's not on this on the sheet. And you can just catch a portion of the bridge on the on the westerly side of the map where the the Hop River comes under. Under Hendy Rd, just to give you an idea where we're at down there. With the lay of the land. In general, that's a summary of what what what the proposal is for you tonight. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
I have a question. Are you able to speak from an environmental perspective, not a cost perspective, the weather removing material from the Western portion of the property versus bringing material in leaving the western portion untouched and bringing material in from off-site and using that to raise the, the building area, what the difference might be?
Well, it's not so much that it's restriction of building in a floodplain area that you have to, you know, for every yard of material you put into, you fill into a floodplain area, you have to take a yard out somewhere else on the property. So it has to be an even exchange on the on the property. So not to decrease the flood storage in that flood plain. Speaker Okay. Speaker Because if you were decreasing the flood storage on this lot, you would be affecting lots other properties potentially up and down the river that would flood more now because you've taken away flood flood storage area.
Does the commission have any other questions of the applicant? Chairman Lai. Yes, Vice Chairman Elliott.
It seems to me that the sidewalk will be in order. I'll run that by the other commissioners to see if it's agreeable and if so to set a time.
This is Jed, I agree a site visit would be very helpful.
Commissioner Smith, do you have interest in attending a site visit?
Megan, did you just ask me? Yes. No, I'm all set.
Mr. Bushnell, what would your availability be to, walk the commission through a site visit? Typically, we do them on a weekend, but it doesn't need to be on a weekend.
The only weekend I have available this month right now is going to be the weekend of the thirteenth and fourteenth, I believe. Yeah. Yep. How does that work for the commission? It would work for me, George Eliot. Works for Smith. Works for Larson. Are you available, Agent Halsey? Yes.
Okay. Think I usually hear nine a. M. Proposed on a Saturday. So I will propose that we do Saturday, June 13 at nine a. M. Are there any objections? Okay. So hearing nope. Okay. So hearing none, we'll plan on, meeting at the property. I do not recommend parking along the road right there. It's a blind curve for cars coming down Hendy. So I would recommend that if needed, cars could park on Pine Ridge Drive, and then walk across to meet at the site. Yeah, just be careful parking on Hendy Road right there. It's not the best location. So for those that can attend, we'll send out an agenda. But plan on Saturday, June 13 at nine a. M. And if there's no further discussion, I think we'll move forward with the agenda.
Megan, this is Jim. Can I just weigh in on this a little bit? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I had met with the applicant probably two months ago and and their engineer and looked at the Marshall and went back and and tried to determine what regulations would come into play. And it's there's both zoning regulations and weapons rig permits here. Although am at this point, I am confused as to the applicability of the town's flood prone zone. It's very confusing, and I I wanna make the applicant I wanted to make the applicant aware the potential that there was an issue, and I did. I did, in fact, have a conversation with Donna, actually several today,
and also with Andrew. So just pointing out that there are a whole other set of regulations that come into play. I did forward, or I did make Derry Hardisty in his capacity as channel engineer aware of the matter because I'd like his input, an engineer, and also to to what I'd like to identify what other permits might be required. Just pointing that out that that hasn't hasn't taken place and the other issue is yes My understanding is you would determine if it's significant activity and and also if a pub public hearing was required. And I'm wondering if you you were waiting for to do that till after a sidewalk. I just thought if if that's the route you're going, then now would be the time to set it.
So a a public hearing, the commission could make the decision to schedule one at any time if it felt for the criteria outlined in the regs that it was perfect to do so. It can also be basically prompted by citizen petition during the next two weeks since date of receipt. So it doesn't really answer your question. I think seeing the property is always helpful in terms of deciding whether or not it's a significant activity or in the public's best interest but we don't have to wait until a site visit if, the commission felt, that it was otherwise warranted to hold a public hearing. Would say, Mr. Bushnell, based on your conversation so far with Mr. Halsey, do you anticipate the project as presented changing in scope?
I mean, I can't rule out small changes for different reasons, but in general, this is this is the the plan.
Okay. I'm wondering if we should wait until next meeting to schedule a site visit and the chance that you all might talk more in between and there's changes that would be relevant to wetlands or if you don't feel that that's likely.
I don't think that's likely because the development of the house and the associated improvements, that's all out of the wetlands regulated area. You know, the only regulated activity as far as wetlands is going to be the fill removal from the from the westerly side. You know, I don't I don't see that changing. Really, that's where the material has to come from. That's the least amount of impact on the wetlands, if any, that's gonna happen, you know, best place to do it, to have the least amount of impact on the wetlands. I really, you know, as far as things within the regulated area, I don't see anything changing.
Okay. So based on that feedback, we'll continue to plan for the scheduled June 13, 9AM site visit. I'm thinking it's probably gonna take a little bit more time than our normal site visits. This is a little bit larger size property than some of the more recent visits. Just the commissioners are prepared for that. I think there's anything else before we move on. Any other discussion, comments, questions before we move on from this application?
I had one other question, Megan. That's for Andrew. How did you anticipate transporting the material from the West side to the East side in this partial?
Just using dump trucks in Hendy Road. You know, we have an existing driveway entrance already to the area where the fill is gonna come from and then we'll construct the driveway to the house area on the easterly side. Okay, thank you.
There was a message that was just received that we can park at 57 Hendy Road if there's room in the driveway as well. So there's that. I did actually have a question. I don't know if it's relevant to wetlands, but I did notice there's activity occurring on the property to the west of the existing residents and I I believe it's outside of the, I can't tell from the Skongomaw from the road, but it's seems to be greater than 200 feet from the Hop River, which for those that aren't familiar with the property is pretty much just off the map to the left.
Are you able to just provide an update as to, what's been going on there? They they just completed a a a new septic system for an existing house at 57. Okay. So I think that's probably what you're seeing. They've been working on it last few weeks. I know they did they also did a lot of cleanup in the field there when they purchased this. There was a lot of junk and debris and old car and truck parts and stuff. They cleaned a lot of stuff out of the out of the field on the westerly side too. They did lot of cleanup down in there. I think they're wrapping that part of it up too. Okay.
We have cell phone numbers for Mr. Bushnell and any, the property owner if they would want to be present in case we need to communicate prior to the visit. Yes, we do. Okay. All right. Perfect.
Okay. So then we'll look at the site on the thirteenth and we'll go from there. Okay. Thank you. Megan, would you like the house staked out?
If that's a possibility, that's a good point. Yeah, to the extent that you can provide us visuals in the fields of Maybe the septic system as well. Yeah, that's always very helpful. So if you have that detail now and it's not problematic, I don't know if the wetlands flagging is still out there, but that's always helpful to see the delineation in the field. Last I knew it still was. Okay.
Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Alright. So we'll move on to item six d on the agenda under permit applications. This is a new application as well from the town of Andover. It's application IWWC20Dash24 and the town is looking to make drainage improvements along Shawty Mill Road and I believe town manager Anderson is on the call to present the project to the commission. That's correct. Megan, you're muted. Thank
you. Would you like Amanda to pull up any documents to help you walk the commission through the application?
First I'll just give a quick, you know, oral description and then we can look at the the, my super crude field sketches and talk you through it. So first the primary thing we're starting this to do is that on the corner of Wales And Shawty Mill we have one failed drainage structure that has been temporarily propped back up but it needs to be replaced and it needs to be replaced from the sump on up the whole thing is bad the sump is bad the body's bad and we did put a new top on it So there's also a pipe that runs under,
under Wales Road that connects it to another drainage structure. That pipe is also in pretty rough shape and the drainage structure on the other side needs to be replaced also. So that part's fairly simple, it's in the town in the middle of the town road. It's the same as any other drainage. It does not collect drainage directly from a wetlands the drainage that goes into those two basins comes straight down from the south along Wales Road and enters those two drainage structures. Where it becomes complicated is when it leaves the drainage structure and it kind of goes in a westerly direction that's where it gets tricky because it runs along not in a wetlands but it runs along a wetlands so if you bring up the sketch 2024
Shotty Mill drainage sketch okay you'll have to forgive me I'm a particularly bad drawer but basically what you're looking at is the intersection of Wales and Shawty. You can see the locations of the two catch basins that we intend to replace and the pipe underneath. Okay, that's right there. So that's relatively simple. The hard part is there's about a two eighty stretch along Schottie Mill Road where the existing pipe that's in the ground is you know is in rough shape. It's a perforated metal pipe, its primary purpose is to gather water that is coming off of Shawty Mill Road during rain events and get it to the an existing culvert that goes under Schottie Mill Road. Now that existing culvert's about a 30 inches RCMP or concrete pipe and there's a little like headwall basin in front of it. So the problem is is that where the pipe comes out the where the metal pipe comes out it just kind of dead ends above that drainage structure. So basically what we're planning on doing is replacing that whole section of pipe which is about two eighty feet and before we do that at the very end Amanda can you just slide go down a little bit? So the goal is to keep at before we do this project so we don't end up with sediment into the little intermittent stream and going under Shawty Mill Road is to basically create a silk fence and then a barrier out of hay bales and make a temporary sediment basin.
This is going to have to be we're going to first have to start by taking about five feet of the existing metal pipe out so we have enough room to do it because the existing metal pipe goes right up to the intermittent waterway. So that's the first thing we want to do is we want to put that structure in place to catch any sediment during construction and then once that's in start with the basins. We'll replace the basins and get the roadwork repair done and then go down Shawty Mill Road and basically dig out and replace existing metal pipe with the plastic pipe. It'll still be a perforated pipe, you know, and run the whole length. Now if you the problem is that there's a fairly short distance between Shawty Mill Road and the old stone wall that runs alongside there. So what we're proposing to do is basically put a silt fence down the whole length of where the stone wall is because it kind of the grade slopes down from Shawty Mill to the stone wall and beyond. And beyond the stone wall on the south side there is what is clearly wetlands, and so the goal is to prevent any sediment during construction from migrating into the wetlands, you know, and any going anything coming down the trench from being stopped by the this sediment basin
that's along there. So that's basically what we're trying to do. Any questions from the commission?
Agent Halsey, have you had a chance to look at the project?
Yeah. I actually walked the site with with Eric and the public works foreman a while back. Pretty straightforward. Actually, the stone wall tirks as a as a backup ENS measure. Pretty well contained. I don't see any issues. Is the Hank that's on the call Hank Gruner? That would be me.
Hi, Hank. I'm wondering if you have any comments given your expertise as an expert in wetlands dwelling amphibians and reptiles.
Doctor. Yeah, I don't, you know, I'd have to take a look at it, but I don't think there's much there from the road running I've done. I mean, that's a pretty intermittent course there. I don't think there's anything breeding in it. I think there's just stuff that's You know, passing through there. I haven't seen any any breeding activity. I can take a look at it if you'd like.
It's not not too far out of your way though.
I can I can probably jog to it? Okay, fantastic. Does the commission have any additional questions or discussion? I have none, George.
Is the commission interested in doing a site visit in association with the project?
I feel familiar enough with the location from my weekly drive by on the way to the transfer station that I can see what's going on. I think I need a site visit.
This is Jed. I wouldn't mind a site visit, and I can do that independently, or maybe we could do that after we did the Hendy Road thing. I think it's always helpful to know and I'm not familiar with this. So that would help me do that.
Smith here, I could do it with Jed privately or also after the Hendy Road on Saturday.
I'm wondering if we couldn't do it before the Hendy Road site visit. I think this one will be a little bit more clear cut. I don't know about the Hendy Road one and Eric usually prefers earlier if possible.
Sure. 06:30 a. M, seven sounds good to me. My kids are up at five. I'll see you there. How about 08:30? You on could do the thirteenth Eric? I'll make myself available on the thirteenth. Okay.
Then do we want to schedule a site visit for 08:30 on the thirteenth? Sounds good. And where shall we meet?
I would say just park along Shoddy Mill Road anywhere, past the, the intersection of Shoddy Mill and Wales towards the transfer station. Now remember, this is a Saturday, so there will be significant traffic,
to the transfer station to contend with. As I recall, there is no park in on the side of the road where the work is being done.
You can park on the side where the work is being done. That's where I park when I look at that site. Okay.
Eric did submit as part of his application package, multiple photographs of the project location. I don't know if it would be helpful to go through those if the commission would still wanna do a site visit after seeing those or not. Amanda, are you able to pull those up?
Okay so the first thing is the one I'm pointing at is the the first of the failed culverts. You can see there's a new basin top on it but the whole structure underneath is shot and you can see that there's a crack formed directly between that and the other basin. A quick look in there looks like the pipe is starting to collapse. I mean it's certainly nowhere near fully collapsed but basically the intent is, from if you look at where my finger is in that one picture and point it across absolutely has to be done which is the two culverts on the side of the road or the culvert under the road and the two catch basins one on each side of the road. I'm pointing from one to the other culvert.
Okay, so that's pretty much what's happening at that particular location and if you look in the lower left hand corner where you see the car basically these two catch basins catch the runoff that primarily comes down the road although one of the basins does have somewhat what appear to be footing drains from the house pictures that's where the kind of more important stuff is. Okay, so starting probably on the upper left hand corner you can see the stone wall in question that stone wall the sediment fence would go just on this side of the stone wall this is looking at it from the road and you can see just beyond the stone wall it is definitely you know a wetlands type soil to my untrained and uneducated eye. If you look one, three on the fourth picture, so two down to the right, you can see the RCMP or the concrete pipe that goes under Schottie Mill Road and you can see the old corrugated perforated metal pipe that just sticks out. Because of where it sticks out there's no real way to put any kind of sediment basin there.
So what we're proposing is basically cut that pipe off five or 10 feet back and build the sedimentation basin back so it doesn't go directly into that into the water course there. You know just to minimize whatever sediment we can from from entering that water course. When I took these pictures which was about a month ago it was there was very definitely water flowing through there there wasn't really much of anything coming out the metal pipe but there was definitely water flowing under Shawty Mill Road from that kind of drainage basin. And that's pretty much it as far as the pictures go, again unless you have specific questions. You know without clearing all the vegetation out along there it's hard to get a really good look at it and and show you what you know what's actually there.
Okay So with that information in mind, does the commission still want to hold a site visit? Do you feel it's important for manager Anderson to be there? Thoughts? You are such a talkative bunch.
This is Jed. I would still like to stop by and see it. Eric doesn't necessarily have to be there to support that. I just always think it's helpful to go look at the job site to get a better understanding. It'll make me a smarter guy because of it. I agree with Jed.
Okay, does anyone feel it's necessary to have a scheduled site visit at which Arkitans? I do not. So
I personally agree. I don't think it's necessary. I would encourage the commission to visit the location, prior to the next meeting. Is it obvious? Does it need to be marked off for commissioners and the public to see where it is?
I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me, but that doesn't necessarily I'm not sure what you would really want marked. The pipe just runs alongside the road. You can see the tops of the two basins, so you can pretty much know where the culvert locations are. And if you walk down to the end, can see where the end of the metal pipe is. So everything is I mean if you want something in particular state, they'll stake it, but I'm not sure that's going to provide you anything that you can't see by looking. Okay. So that's pretty straightforward for me too. Okay.
It seems like we're all on the same page that hopefully the public won't have any challenges locating it if they're interested. The commissioner seem confident they can do so. So, we will remove the mention of including a site visit on the thirteenth for this project and we'll we'll stick with just 9AM at at the 57 Handy Road for that day. And that'll be clear on the agenda that gets posted for that visit.
And if any of your commission members wanna walk it during normal business hours too, just let me know. And as long as I know ahead of time, I'll meet you down there and walk you through it. Okay.
And I I don't imagine there's gonna be a ton of public interest, but I assume that would apply to the public as well, if they could give you a call and meet you out there. I imagine if the public really wanted to walk it, I would walk it with them. Fair enough. Okay. Alright. So we will revisit this application then at our July meeting if there's no further discussion. Thank you very much.
You, Eric. Let's move on. Item number seven on the agenda is open enforcement items and we will pretty much turn this over to, commissioner Halsey who's serving as interim wetlands agent on these items. We'll start with item a, regarding the Townsend Road property owned by Matthew Hagerty, that we received quite a while now back some complaints regarding logging activity in the wetlands.
Okay I spoke to Matt prior to previous meeting and if you may recall he had surgery indicated he would take care of he did put hay bales up several months ago I believe. Hay bales that were required as part of the approved plan and he said in June he would take care of the removing the fill from from wetlands. We left it at that. I have it. I keep it on the. Monitoring it in in June. I mean I will it's. Will give him a call in a week or two and make sure that he remembers. Any discussion from the Commission?
This is Jed and one of the lessons I guess I took away from this particular item is that when we went over and did the site visit with Matt before he started this project, I had a much smaller footprint of land that would be cleared than I see out there today. So when we have these site drawings and that and we can put down as best as we can where the clearing would be. He was talking about minimizing the footprint to be right up where the house was and all that. And it was just a little more extensive than I was expecting it to be now that it's all done. Any additional comments or discussion? Megan? Yes, Hank. Is it okay if I speak?
Yes, you can speak as an expert for the Commission. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I
only have one concern actually at this point is that since we're, you know, well into the spring season and the breeding season for the amphibians. I know there are various species that utilize that wetland. I'm a little concerned that actually the method that might be used to remove the fallen trees in there may actually do more damage than just leaving them in place until it's an inactive season inactive time period. I don't know what what Mr. Haggerty was planning on how he was going to remove them if he was going to use a skidder or how he was going to do that. I'm not certain how we plan to do that.
Yeah, and I'm not sure the location of the tree. Have not seen, you know, where these are actually in the wetland, you know, it may be worth a look just to make sure that we don't just inadvertently do more damage by trying to haul those out of there. I don't know if they're full trees or what's or just tops or you know what the situation is.
I'd be happy to meet you out there and yeah, that'd be great. Do that I I can give you a call. Okay, you have my number. I don't, but you're gonna give it to me right. I am right now. 861.
Give it publicly Hank or do you want to do it offline? It's fine (860) 712-1308. Thank you. Yep.
We'll have you two meet and then decide the best course of action
for considering to follow-up on that item. Thank you. I will call Mr. Haggerty and let him know. Okay.
Okay. So let's move on to agenda item seven b regarding the notice of violation that was issued to Mr. Grant at 28 Shawty Mill Road.
Okay I did speak to Mr. Grant pretty much. Was some disturbance near the swale along the road and reaching back, and he was very cooperative, he stopped for, I am scheduled to meet with him tentatively tomorrow afternoon to see what he plans to do, but he wants to do, Sounds like he indicated he wanted to plant some crops and cut a few dead trees, but I will get a better handle on what he's doing, but he really has ceased with the heavy equipment. I haven't seen it. I mean, I've been by there a number of times. Haven't seen any activity. I think that's pretty much at this point.
Any discussion from the Commissioner questions? Hearing none, we'll move on. Item 7C and 7D on the agenda are more or less the same violation. We've just been keeping them in case it's needed to restrict the comment to one property or the other. I think we can talk about them collectively if you want to give an update on the status of that violation.
Okay. Still working with the the owner of oh, trying to get number 41. The owner 41 Routes 87 to agree construction in order to do that construction, meaning the removal of debris may recall with. Some fill that went in on her property on on their property and. On the stream, and I'm I'm trying to get a certificate of insurance. I'm dealing with the contractor attorney for 4,187. Hope I will resolve that very shortly. The other issue is I did meet with Kurt Bohm, owner of thirty three, regarding the shed and he indicated he's willing to move it. His his lot is. There's very little property on the lot that's more than 100 feet away from Webb. Pretty restrictive lot. And he brought up the possibility of moving I mean, this is a portable shed. It it can be moved. I mean, it's big, but it it's it's not really anchored to the ground at this point. And he was ordered to to remove it. And we were discussing options as if there were any options on the site, and one thought was that he placed. He's not required to to to put frost protection under a shed this size. It falls under the threshold. Actually place it on the ground. That's something I wanted to discuss with the Commission, whether that's a possibility.
Meaning that there would be no. If there's no disturbance of the of site. Other than placement of. Would it constitute would fall under the wetlands commission peer purview. So can you clarify where it would be placed?
Not at this time. I can there were there were a couple of options. There's not a lot of good ones. I can I can draw them up for next meeting or and have him draw them up? There is one and and I I think you'd need to see a plan of it, and I'd be happy to do that. I I did try and when I met with him last week, I provided him with a base map of his property and the idea was that we would come up with some options and and and kind still working with him on that.
Are there any options? I think he said no more or less, but they so all the options that sounds like are along the the right side of the driveway if you're facing the house from the road?
There's also one in the back. I mean not much of a back property, if you recall the stream sort of somewhat of a triangular lot. Believe there there is some some property, but I mean it's it still falls I think within 100 feet. Of wetlands. So the question arises as to whether. Whether he could. Whether he actually would trigger. The need for a permit if he simply placed. The shed elsewhere.
It obviously is kind of separate from wetlands, but it might restrict the options. What are the zoning components to the requirements There's
25 foot side yards. I mean, he can he can work with those. What if I do this? If I bring in a plan? I mean, sketch of what his options are. Weren't further discussion? Does the Commission have any thoughts on that?
George Elliott speaking. I felt that the main issue with the shed was the fact that there was fill associated with its present location. And the idea of moving the shed was to, well, get it away from that proximity to the watercourse, but also to enable equipment to get in to repair and to, I believe, put in rick rack or bank improvements were going to be done there. But it would be helpful to have a site plan showing where the shed might be relocated. The commission has rejected the idea of simply moving it forward, that is, away from the stream in its present location. So we would have to see some other options for where that shed might go. And I'm looking right now at the aerials that we have from our previous meetings. And as Aging Allisi points out, there just ain't many places where it could go.
What does it entail to move the shed? Do you know in terms of, like, literally what gets done to move it?
Truck that does it. That's all I know. The gentleman believes that the guy who delivered it was willing to move it anywhere he had to. That's my understanding.
I'm wondering if it could be temporarily moved to another location, not necessarily the final location, but to at least allow for the restoration that George is talking about of the stream bank in the meantime.
It could certainly be, I mean ideally it would be moved once. It can certainly be moved for the restoration but then the question remains as to where it it goes from there.
Right. I think I think the commission's main concern is restoring that stream bank as George noted and removing the fill from it. I think we're probably less concerned if it's just going to sit on top of the land somewhere where that is. I don't know if there's a way to expedite that restoration piece. I guess is what I'm ultimately getting at. Does the question want agent Halsey to prepare some drawings regarding options for relocating the shed that we could look at at the next meeting? I would agree to that. With the preparing a map of options? Yes.
And what I'd like to show is how this is going to sit on the ground, how it's not going to disturb soil. That's what the wetland would interested in.
Any other options that you're considering, they wouldn't require any placement of fill or otherwise leveling?
That's that's my understanding. I mean I'd have to finalize the site and confirm that. That's something that I've you know, I mean there was possibility to put it in the front yard, it would look off. I mean it's just visually it would be drop a shed along the tree in front of the house. Just wouldn't work.
It's a big shed for a little property. Alright, so if you can visually depict what you have been talking about with Mr. Baum for the commission to look at next meeting I think that might be helpful. Don't know. You can do that.
Commissioner Smith or Commissioner Larson, did you have anything to add?
Jim, is the shed on anything what's it sitting on now? Does it have concrete
tubes or It's sitting on, I think, six by six. Ties of torque. They're ties, they're pressure treated lumber. Six by six, I believe.
Okay, so when you were talking about the frost, whatever, it would be no different than it is right now.
Not really, no. When I'm talking about frost protection, what I mean is how you're excavating for piers or what or foundation or something of that nature and opposed to placing on the ground.
Okay. Well, let's revisit this next meeting. And then if we can continue to work to try and get the material that was deposited on the 41 side removed in the meantime, that would be helpful I think to keep this moving on. All right. So that brings us to our final open enforcement item which is the cease and desist order, which was issued, to the Puertos at 129 Hebron Road. It's complicated, those of you that are familiar with this. Basically, it's removal and deposition of a material, but it's associated with a fence that's, was being constructed along the perimeter of the property. So, agent Halsey can you give us an update on that one?
Yeah, as you may recall the Cuartos were issued cease cease and desist that leaving notice to director around. They're asked to submit an application based on or one of the options, and the I did receive an application and a plan today at 05:00 thereabouts. I wasn't able to to get it on on the website. I will the the application actually is involves a garage with a with a an accessory apartment, a pool, shed, involves more than than the trench. Looking at the plan, have not and there are there is some concern considerable concern among the neighbors about that trench being whether it's on his well, concern that it's there's an opinion that it's not on its property.
And the plan that I'm looking at is it shows post trench, all of it, As opposed to what's there or you know it's existing with trenches trenches aren't there. The point being the plan that I have does not definitively answer the question as to whether those trenches are on the property or not. You know, it's something I'd rather not get involved. I mean, towns generally don't get involved in, but nonetheless, you will have a plan before you at an upcoming meeting, and that will be an issue that certainly arises. I'm trying to think as I speak out how to address that. I know that I I will have a conversation with the the engineer who's Tarbell Hines. He's Hartford paired the plan. There's also weapons on the plan, and I'm not quite sure who delineated those. That information does not appear to be here. Again, I really haven't reviewed it. And I have to apologize the last last time this came up I had provided a letter from a gentleman by the name of Matthew Davidson, who was environmental consultant, and he attached he delineated the wetlands when Puertos built the addition two years ago or thereabouts. And he provided a map with that. And I looked at it very quickly, and I assumed that map was he had prepared. And as it turned out, it was database from, I think, the NDRS or state elsewhere. It wasn't it wasn't his did not depict his delineation.
And I said I would provide that and I realized you've already you already had it. Now I do. I did actually have in the file a plan with wetlands from from the time with wetlands delineated. But again, it was none. It was not clear where who who had delineated them, where that information had come from. It was used back in years ago. So I'm trying to sort out those details at this time. And I also have I mean, there is there's ongoing complaints about work going on, which I do need to address. Cut cutting trees in the rear and the trench themselves. So
is there because we did in discussing it, we had said it was basically outside of the commission's jurisdiction, the front property line. So we couldn't stop them basically from doing the work in that area. We didn't know how to say in the matter, but I thought it clear that the rear of the lot that the cease and desist did stand for that portion of the property. So you're saying there's continued activity?
I'm not saying it's back. I'm gonna have to do further investigation. I was there Saturday, but I was over on on Maria Tolman's side, which is and looking around and there appears to be ongoing activity. I did not go over and check bench between Eggernaar which is on the downhill side, I have to do that. I do, I mean, I do know that there's a lot of concern in the neighborhood, and you know, they would like to be heard at some point, you know that.
Yeah, I'm not sure how to go about doing that. The wetlands doesn't really kind of offer a great forum for that. I don't know if others have thoughts on that. I think maybe perhaps once an application is submitted, you know, that would potentially be an opportunity. There's always, it's always in the public's ability to submit a petition if they can get signatures from 25 or more residents over the age of 18 within a two weeks period for a public hearing on an application. That's always an option. But my understanding from the guidance we've gotten from the lawyers is we're supposed to really limit public comment outside of a public hearing. Don't know if anyone else has different thoughts.
Megan, can't we hold a public hearing because we anticipate significant public concern?
Yeah. I mean, the the state statutes and the town regulations, there's there's kind of this catchall out clause. So, if the commission feels that it's in the public's best interest to hold a a public hearing on an application, it can always do so. So the commission could decide, if an application if any application was presented, that, if it feels there's a significant activity, that must hold a public hearing. But if it, you know, it may feel that there's not necessarily significant activity, but for other reasons, it would be in the public's best interest. The commission can make the decision to do so. If the commission didn't, then there is that third option for the public to submit a petition within two weeks of date of receipt, to basically force the commission's hands, to hold a public hearing on the matter. Without an application, I mean, you can't hold a public hearing. So, I guess we have to kinda wait until we have an application before us to decide, whether the commission wants to go that route or not.
Chairman Loehle, I believe that the cease and desist order that we issued did call for immediate cessation of all activity within 100 feet of the wetlands. We did specifically state that the wall or fence in the front along Route 316 was outside that and outside our jurisdiction. But it seems from Agent Halsey's comments that activity is continuing in the area where it was specifically prohibited. Is that correct?
That was my question. And I think Jim's uncertain at this point. I think he's received information that suggested there may be, but hasn't had a chance to investigate it. I would need to follow-up. Yes.
Which I can do. My recollection is the same as what George was just describing, that we made it very clear that they could continue the wall along the roadside of the property, but until they had an application, they weren't supposed to do anything other than that. That's my understanding as well. We can certainly
I'm going have to get a better handle on what's going on there quite honestly.
We could revisit. A letter was sent out after the show cause hearing that should have stated clearly. And I believe it did, you know, what the decision of the commission was, which I believe is what we've just said within 100 feet needed to, cease and desist. So yeah, if you can follow-up on that Jim, and perhaps consult with attorney grants as needed for guidance and then, we'll revisit it, at our next meeting. I think, the application we can, I wouldn't post it online yet? I have to check into that one, but it can at least be circulated among the commissioners. It'll be received at our next meeting, but there's no reason it can't be looked at, by the commissioners before then. It just can't be discussed outside of the meeting period. Is there any further questions or comments on that agenda item?
I have a question. Perhaps I didn't follow you fully. I post this without being post the material, the application, and plan prior to such time posted meeting on the town's website prior to acceptance?
I wanna check on that piece. Okay. I wanna post it online. But one, the application fees have to be paid. So I would check with Susan. If the application fees are paid and it's assigned an application number, I think it's okay to circulate it at least among the commission, to give us time to review it prior to the next meeting. We always, you know, encourage applications early if possible to give us time.
Okay. I I can I can circulate it and post it at such time? We'll
figure that out. Right? Yeah. And then I'll I'll touch base on the I have to think who to ask that question. Like when is too soon to post stuff in terms of submission versus date of receipt, whether there's a reason it shouldn't go on the town website at this point or if it can, But let's make sure the application fees have at least been paid first. Agenda item eight is pretty much a catch all for anything else that Jim wanted to share or new enforcement items that have come up since our last meeting that weren't necessarily on the agenda? I don't know if you want to speak to the only one I can think of Jim, the one off of Hendy Road by the river on the opposite side of 57.
57 Hendy Road, yes. Property that's there was a foundation poured two years back and no construction foundation for a house and a garage poured. There's a variety of things going on there. There's material that seemed to be leaving the site down the driveway flowing both to the river, the Hop River and to Catch Basin. To the West, I would think. And I. Just started looking into the matter. I intend to send a after a cease and desist and at least initiate conversation. The owner find out exactly what's going on at the site And there's there was an anti tracking pad shown on the initial plan, and it may have very well been installed, but it's a few years and they ended here. But nonetheless, some in order for that sediment to so the, filters coming off the site, there has to be some something, some engineering done. I mean, not necessarily by by a PE, but somebody's gotta figure out where that water's gonna flow. Old older you know, it wasn't created with a plan, subdivision plan by any means, and there's also some zoning issues I believe going on there. So what I'd like to do is is at least issue a cease and desist and go from there.
Amanda are you able to allow me to share my screen?
Yes I will make you the co host right now And then you should be able to scroll down and see the green arrow. Do you want to stop cloud recording? No. What do you I
think I I think I got it. Yeah. Let's see. Can everyone see a Google Maps aerial imagery? Yep. Okay. So I'm just gonna scroll out a little bit. So this is Route 6 along here and then this is Hendy Road just for perspective. So this is 57 Hendy Road, the earlier application that we discussing. Across the other side, this is the Hop River here. Across the other side of the Hop River is this parcel and that's the one we are talking about at the moment. I don't know if that's helpful to better understand the location. As you can see, there's lot of previous activity on the property. I think there's a lot of new activity. I had asked Jim to look into it because there's a few catch basins. Don't know if I can pull them out on the map. There's one here and one or two over here. Basically there's a steady stream of sediment leaving this property that's going into the catch basins consistently and then presumably into the river. I haven't actually checked where directly they're going but that would be my guess. And then most recently all this vegetation here that you can see in the photo, I think all the few pieces over here has been cleared. There's a fair bit of activity underway. Actually most of the vegetation you see here at this point is probably gone. They have goats pendants here. This is a fairly steep slope right here. And there was some erosion control issues. There was a lot of debris leaving the property previously that we had asked them to, and he did install,
a fence to control that because I was seeing sheets of, insulation and stuff over here on this bank. So it wasn't a well controlled site. So they did they did fence here to control, large debris from leaving the the up construction area. A series of small violations that seem to be occurring and I asked Jim to take a look at it. This never came before the commission. I believe it was an administrative review or approval, I should say, by agent Valenti previously. And I I don't recall the details of it. So I had asked Jim to try and pull the file and and see if he could see, you know, whether there was erosion and sediment controls as part of the approval or anything along those lines. Megan, is there a date on that?
Is there a date? It says 2020, but nothing more specific than that.
Okay. I mean, it's it's within the last two years because the foundation is. Yeah. Yeah. The the the there. Have to go by.
I don't know if the commission has any questions or comments. Okay. Interesting.
Megan, could I could I speak. Ahead. Just that is a major area for wood turtles that I had for many years just downstream of the Hendy Road Bridge was a significant hibernaculum. I believe even mapped by the Connecticut deep along the banks there and I know the turtles use. I wasn't aware there was this much activity down there. I've been concentrating on other areas on the hop lately, but I'm a little concerned about the activities there. There may need to be some sort of exclusion fencing or so, but I'm concerned about the celtation, but I'm also concerned about potentially excluding turtles from getting getting whacked over there being attracted to any disturbance that they might doing for nesting which will be occurring in the next two weeks.
Jim, can you follow-up? I think you were gonna follow-up with Hank anyway. Yes. Hagerty property, maybe if you can follow-up on that piece. I apologize, Hank. I don't wanna discuss it now because I don't think, yeah, the applicant's representative isn't on the call anymore. But I think next meeting we'll ask for your input on the other side of the river. So if you're able to attend the site visit on the thirteenth, that would be helpful. Yes,
definitely will be there. I wrote it down. Thank you. Hey,
this is Jim. What was the term you used south of the river a
It was a hibernaculum, that's a spot, that's a place where they basically overwinter and there were large concentrations of the turtles overwintering south of that, or you know just below the bridge area. They've since have moved because there was a large tree that had gone down that created a deeper water conditions there. When that blew out on floods several years ago, it dropped the water level there. The one upstream? No, this was downstream of that made there were some high grade upstream, There were, there were a number of them that were moving from the downstream to the upstream and using that there's a sandbar there. Doctor. And they were also using they were actually nesting in the field there to the right on the east side. Yep. And they were using those embankments because of the openness and when you mentioned the issue of the cleared vegetation that got me thinking, you know, there could be some potential impacts to the, you know, because they're they're tight to those areas.
We'll have you guys follow-up then and Jim, I would say feel free to proceed, you know, accordingly in the meantime before we meet again based on Hank's guidance. Okay.
All right. The second public comment period on the agenda on item number nine. I don't know if there's any, public left on the call to comment.
Since it's been clarified that 12 Webster Lane is in fact a subdivision, will there be a public hearing for that?
So the subdivision piece is separate from the wetlands piece. My understanding and commissioner Larson sits on both wetlands and planning and zoning for this reason. My understanding is that the applicant, the wetlands applicant has not submitted a planning and zoning application yet because they wanted to see whether or not wetlands would approve before going the P and Z route. So we look at it kind of as though the subdivision had been approved. We basically look at the project as it's been proposed and try and assess the impacts, the wetlands and watercourse and whether or not they can be mitigated or avoided. So we could make an approval. That doesn't mean it's going to be approved as a subdivision. So it still has to go through that process. And I don't know if I can turn it over to Jed to speak to that piece of the puzzle if it did go into a P and Z application.
And so to have a further subdivision approval, correct me if I'm wrong Jim, but that does require that we have a public hearing. Absolutely yes.
That means that don't read subdivision. Yes. By our subdivision is required by our regulations. I'm sorry, public hearing is required for subdivision by our regulations. It's not required. When you say our, you mean the town? Yes. It's not required by state statute. It's required by the town of Vandom
subdivision. So normally an applicant, they have to apply to wetlands first and usually the applicant apply to us and then immediately the P and Z after, and then the public hearing would potentially address both commissions. In this case, since we don't have a P and Z application, it's a little bit clunky because the wetlands commission might decide to make a decision without a public hearing and then it could go to PNZ and then need to go to public hearing or wetlands could decide to have a public hearing and then it could go to PNZ and potentially need a second public hearing. There's a lot of potentials right now. I hope that answers your question well. No, it does. I was just curious.
I wondering if there would be one and then if there there is a regulation that I wanted to bring up and I was just wondering so it's in the Andover master subdivision regulations and I was just wondering if that would be involved with a planning and zoning meeting or if that would be something that would be brought up at wetlands because it does does take into account sanitary waste within a 100 feet of a wetlands. So I just didn't know if that would be handled by this commission or if that would be handled by planning and zoning.
No. So that would be handled by planning and zoning. I mean, we are, our town ordinance designed this commission. So we have a PNC rep on it to try basically to avoid unnecessary work. You know, we don't wanna approve something that is known that it's going go before PNC and just fail. So we try and prevent that, and, and wasting people's time essentially. But since there's no PNC application, we don't really have PNC feedback on this one. So we have to just strictly look at it from wetlands and make our decision. They would need because there's a septic system involved, they would need health district approval as well. So there is the potential to that, you know, on an application wetlands could approve it as presented. If they don't have that health district approval yet, could go to the health district. The district could say, no, we need you to modify your application this way. And then they would need to come back before wetlands for a modification approval. So there's a lot of, different paths an application can take in these situations because there are multiple commissions involved.
So I don't,
I think it's safe to say at this point that wetlands will not hold a public hearing on it based on what I've heard this evening. I I haven't heard any commissioners speak up, to state that they thought it was in the public's best interest or otherwise a significant activity.
If just I add, this is Jim. Just add one issue here is both of the lots front in Bolton. And N over NZ will have to coordinate the approval process. I don't know exactly how this how this is gonna work. I there's a lot of unknowns at this point, But there's no application before us.
Great. Has the town done that before? Yes. Okay, so there is at least precedent to go on?
No in Coventry. I don't but I wasn't involved in that I don't know how that was handled in the driveway. Again I can hear.
Okay I want to be careful about not discussing that application without the applicant or the representative present, but just talk procedurally. Those kind of the options that can happen. Okay. So is there any additional public comment? So hearing none, we can move on to item 10 on the agenda, other business. The first item of which is, commission vacancies. We do have two alternate vacancies presently. So continue to think of people that might be interested in serving. It's always great if someone has a relevant professional background but it's not a requirement. Any young professionals that are looking for experience, I can't imagine jobs are going to be flush in the upcoming months. Certainly a great opportunity if you know anybody that is pursuing environmental science, town planning, anything along those lines, encourage them. They do need to be an Andover resident. One person expressed interest that they didn't live in town. So they weren't eligible. Anyone have any names they would like to suggest? No regret. Okay.
We'll continue to try and, you know, think of ways to find people to join us. Because we are, we're slim pickings. But that kind of leads into item 10B on the agenda, regarding a wetlands enforcement officer. We do have an interview scheduled for next week, I believe. So if we are able to hire someone else to serve in the agent position, then that would free Jim back up to serve as a commissioner again, which I think would be really helpful to the commission. So that all five of us could serve know, being stuck in a position where, if someone has to recuse themselves, we don't have a quorum to vote anymore, which has been challenging the last few meetings. So as part of, I wanted to kind of wrap it into, we are still actually recruiting for an agent. I think we're gonna do a rolling, interview and hiring process and Amanda chime in if this is incorrect. So if you know of someone that would be interested or qualified, please encourage them to apply. Then hopefully as soon as we find a qualified candidate, we'll bring them on board so we have someone to help us. In the meantime, talked about it the last two meetings, but we didn't have enough, commissioners to vote on it. I did complete the state training. If the commission would like,
you can decide to authorize me to, make decisions in, the Upland Review area so that they don't need to come before the commission if they're not, likely to be a significant activity. So I don't know if the commission would like to discuss that at this time.
I would move to authorize chairman Lalit to make such decisions as we authorized by her training and our permission in regard to upland review. Jen will second.
I will recuse myself from voting but just for procedure. So the motion is made by vice chairman Elliott and seconded by commissioner Larson for the commission to authorize me as a duly authorized agent to make only approvals in the upland review area. By state statute, I have completed the training so I'm eligible. I would only be able to make approvals within the 100 or 200 foot depending on the water body or well in question up in review area that are not going to be a significant activity and then the commission can choose to restrict it further. Other towns have limited it so it's only particular types of activities or they said it can't include commercial activity, it can't include activities that involve a property up greater than a certain acreage. So I would encourage you to discuss whether or not you want to consider any restrictions along those lines. Well, I guess
my thoughts are I know that you have with the environment at heart, Megan, and you would always forward something to the commission that you thought was questionable in your mind on whether or not you should do it. I'm very comfortable that you would take the right approach there. And so I don't feel that we would need to put any additional restrictions on that. Hopefully it would make your life easier, not harder, because it would take some of the commission work off. When you're a very knowledgeable person on that and can say, yep, in this case, we don't need to send it to the commission. I'll sign it off, and it's done. And we go on our merry way. I agree with Jed.
And again, given the size of Andover and the kinds of activities that we're typically looking at, I don't see any particular need to restrict it to one sort of activity or another. The kinds of examples you gave, Chamblai, don't really seem to be germane. So I would agree that we don't need to impose any further restrictions.
I just wanna make it clear. So if I if you make the decision, if you vote, to approve the motion, typically the commission can't overturn that motion. The public can appeal it. But in doing so, you're basically granting that authority to me. If I make a decision that you feel you would have handled differently, It does remove that element from the commission. I see it as an opportunity more for building permits that come through that might be within an upland review area but clearly don't have any potential for wetlands impact. Garage additions, decks, things like that. Don't think we need to be holding up people's projects just for procedure. That's where I think I would be more helpful. Think anything larger in scope I would bring before the commission. So I guess if there's no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the motion. Vice chairman Elliott, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Chairman Larson, how do you vote? Aye.
Thank you. And Chairman Smith, how do you vote? Aye. As Chairman Lalio, I'll recuse myself from voting. So the motion carries three zero one. I will serve as a, duly authorized agent for commissions to make decisions in the Upland review area as needed. I will provide you with a monthly report of any such approvals at the next meeting. I believe it's required that we post legal notice within a certain timeframe. I will familiarize myself with that and make sure the town is following any required procedures regarding that. Anything else the commission would like to discuss before we adjourn? Megan, did you say those positions were volunteer?
Did you? The commissioner so the agent position is paid. We're hiring right now for a ten hour a week agent position, and that should be posted online. And then the the commissioner positions, those are volunteer. And I would encourage you to consider applying given your background if you have any interest. Or if you know anyone. I will give it some consideration.
Yeah, we have, we have one alternate serving right now, but he, he basically lives out of state at this point. So, I mean, I think we could, we definitely have room for two additions to the commission and, I think potentially a third, if someone was interested. But yeah, if you are interested or, you know, somebody else in the community that would be interested, definitely encourage them to submit. It doesn't need to be a formal CV or resume, just a letter of interest in general background, I think, is sufficient.
Okay. Okay. How Megan, the letters would be submitted to the town clerk. Is that is that accurate?
This has come up before, and I I don't wanna miss speak. I believe it states in the charter who, ultimately the board of selectmen makes the decision. So I think the way it goes is, basically what I would recommend would be submitting it to, myself, the town clerk and the board of selectmen. And then I think the commission would basically bet the candidates and tell the board of selectmen whether they feel that they would recommend approving them or not. And then it would be the board of selectmen's decision whether or not to actually do so. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you. I'll second. Okay.
So motion to adjourn made by George Elliott at 09:15 and seconded by commissioner Larson. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Aye. Alright. Motion carries four zero zero with all commissioners participating voting aye. And with that, we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.