Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting
April 13, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Good evening, everyone. 07:00, time to commence this hearing of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission. The objective of the hearing is to obtain information and hear public comments regarding IWWC 2,036 applications to construct a wetland crossing for proposed driveway and new construction. In keeping with the usual procedures of the Commission in the hearing, I will ask in order first for the applicants or their agent to comment on the proposal with special reference to how the plans have been modified or evolved in response to comments at previous meetings. I'll afford an opportunity for commissioners to inquire, ask questions about the proposed permit, and finally, I'll open the hearing to public comment from interested parties. I see on screen that we have Commissioner Larson, Commissioner Hallisey, alternate Monroe, of course myself, Acting Chairman George Eliot present for the meeting. We will seat
Mr. Monroe for the hearing and for the subsequent meeting that will follow. I was informed that Commissioner Lowy would not be able to attend, and evidently Commissioner Smith also. Okay. So, proceeding then to Item three of the hearing agenda, I will ask the applicants again or their agent as preferred to again briefly outline the proposal and especially focus on the modifications, recent modifications. Note that we have in our record online a new crossing plan dated threeonetwenty one and a construction sequence final draft to reference for the application. So I'll turn it over to the applicants. Who wants to speak?
So, thank you Chairman Elliott. This is Eric Lateska, one of the two applicants. George Correa is the other person also on the call. Then I'll ask George Logan, who is also on the call, to please feel free to follow-up here after I do my best here to describe the application. So what's being proposed is a crossing of a wetlands of two wetlands areas. They actually, we believe they're intermittent streams, during the wet season. There can be some, you know, a few inches of water that'll collect, especially, after a good rain, event happens. The crossing goes over, you know, what is kind of a corridor, behind, the cul de sac and actually all the way behind Pine Ridge Drive. The access to rear lots behind the frontage on Pine Ridge, would go through a narrow area approximately about 45 feet. It's right, on the left side of the end of the street on the cul de sac, right where the cul de sac kind of starts, the round area of the cul de sac. The
proposal involves us, sort of following the grade of the area right off of Pine Ridge Road, and then as you know, if you live in the area, particularly on that side of Pine Ridge, it dips down, there's a corridor where these, wetlands areas, go through. One branch comes in, behind all of the, the watershed is behind a lot of the houses on Pine Ridge. The other actually comes down. It's where the, the water course coming down from Old Farms Road flows through. Once we get down, once you get down into the low lying area, the plan involves raising the crossing up approximately
five or six feet, and we would have interlocking concrete blocks to kind of create the outer walls and then fill the interior portion of it, and put a gravel driveway on top of it. The two streams that go underneath this crossing, would flow through on the western side, eastern side, forgive me, a three foot culvert pipe would be embedded, 25%, of the, of the area of a cross section would be embedded into the, into the ground, and the eastern stream would flow through a larger, eight foot wide by four foot tall concrete box culvert. That too would be embedded with about 25% of its area would be embedded under the ground. That last part there, box culvert is one of the more recent changes to the plan. We originally were going to have let me hold on a normal pipe to with comply with potentially another jurisdiction from the Army Corps of Engineers, which were in the process, still in the process of working with a bigger opening was required to comply with one of their standards. I think that kind of generally describes, what's happening. Think, so, you know, the driveway would go down, hit to that bottom area and then kind of go back up, and it would go in, allow access to one of the, one of two homes that will be built on the rear lot that's, that's, that this driveway kind of, that this opening in from Pine Ridge gives, access to that property. I think, you know, I don't know that I have anything else, at least in my head to add to this, so maybe I can ask,
either George Correa or George Logan if you guys have anything else to add. George Logan, the quick introduction, George has represented us in a couple of ways. He's evaluated the ecological impact. He's also a scientist. He could probably speak to a range of factors here about the impact of the project, and George Correa certainly knows the details, the specific details of dimensions and the crossing and volumes and stuff like that better than I do. So I'll turn it over if you guys have anything else to add. Thank you for the time.
Sure, this is George Logan, Rheem Ecological Services, soil scientist, wetland scientist, ecologist. There's been a couple reports that I've submitted into the record. I think the last one was about a month ago or so, I believe. Trying to find a date here. Yes, actually February 22. It's been a while. So at that time, one of the things we had been discussing prior to that was whether we would have stayed with the 36 inch pipe for both streams. And as you might recall, I've gone out and evaluated these streams. Yes, it was winter. Yes, there was snow on the ground, but you always can see with the aquatic organisms that are utilizing the stream. I was most more interested in the Eastern Stream because our hydraulic engineer had told us that
the Western Watershed, which is a larger one, has about 40 acres, and it it has wetlands also associated. It's behind all those houses that are Pine Ridge. And the Eastern Watershed was only 23 acres. And as you will recall, whereas the Western Stream is almost, I wouldn't say it's level, it comes up but not at a high grade past the area of the crossing. And there are wetlands behind that to the north. The Eastern Stream, or the 23 acres, has a pretty steep section for about 400 or so feet before it flattens out at the top. And that's associated with the Red Maple Swamp at that point. So based on my evaluation of the aquatic life that could use that, I'll also have you remember we had discussions with Hank Gruner and the sensitivity of the general area, because of the Hop River nearby and, the potential that wood turtles could come up to this area for foraging, following the string courses. And as you recall, just below this crossing, the wetland is pretty flat and it's somewhat open. So during well, from now on and and during growing season, it will be replete with all kinds of herbaceous species that could potentially have provide for cover for the turtles as they come up the corridor, if they would, even though to the actual river itself, there's a section of about maybe a hundred, hundred and fifty feet, which is also a pretty steep gradient and sort of rocky and probably not the best place for turtles to pass, but it is possible to pass. So based on all our discussions that we had
and the fact that we have to comply with certain things that the Army Corps of Engineers, voice on us, even though typically they do it only for, you know, higher order streams, higher order intermittent streams and also perennial streams, we decided we we we better go with the box culvert to comply with the openness ratio, even though we don't have to comply with part of it because it is an intermittent stream, such as being 1.2 times the flow path of stream. That's usually for a perineal stream. So we decided to put it on the western and maintain the 36 inches culvert somewhat buried for the Eastern stream, not the West. The Western has the box culvert. Another thing that we we kinda threw in the mix, one of the questions that was asked of us was how about mitigation? We explained that typically in kind mitigation is not a good idea when a site is relatively undisturbed unless there was an area that we could restore, enhance. So we decided that as far as mitigation is concerned, that we would do one thing up, as recall, the 23 acre or so eastern intermittent stream goes up the hill where it flattens about 400 feet from the crossing. It's unfortunately replete with Japanese barberry, which is an invasive species, an invasive shrub. So what we proposed was for where the stream comes up and the wetland corridor starts widening out and flattens is to remove Japanese barberry within 15 feet of the intermittent stream and for a length of at least 150 feet from where it crests up the hill and then follows up. I think by the time we get to 150 feet or so, it starts veering
off-site. And the proposal will be simple, and and thankfully, Japanese barberry is one of the easiest species to get rid of. You can basically yank them. You don't have to use any refractory organics, any herbicides to to remove them. I've done it in my backyard out here, and it took me really one season to get rid of. But we're probably saying that it probably is gonna be a first season where the bulk of it is taken out mechanically. Usually the procedure for that is to wait for the soil to be moist after a rainstorm. And then you could use a a weed wench to basically take the whole thing out if possible. If it's too big, you cut it at the base.
Remove all that material properly. And then the second year, you just remove seedlings. That's the only thing that probably will remain that would come up again. And after that time, we recommended that we could interplant in appropriate spaces to diversify the understory, particular by a minimum of 50 shrubs that could be planted. And I think the species that we selected are some ones that are out there already. For instance, spicebush, common winterberry, nannyberry, I think we had gray dogwood in there too, and a minimum of 50 species to be planted. So I think what we've done in the past few months here,
after all the discussions that we had, where it was a significant improvement, especially with the box culvert at the Western Stream with bigger watershed. I know that at the last time, my my colleague, Hank Gruner, had a question as to whether there will be, a hydraulic issue, meaning that we were the box cover would potentially concentrate and erode the stream. Again, I mentioned at that time that I didn't feel qualified, specifically, so the project engineer, I think, was the one that commented on that. I don't think he's with us tonight. Probably has another commitment. But my understanding is that the improvement that is done in associated with the box cover, you just don't plop a box cover down. You you obviously
make sure that you you guide the you guide the water through the channel that he thought from talking to him that this would not create an erosional problem. That the two year storm, which is the primary storm that we are concerned with, that happens frequently enough and it has a large volume, would pass through here. As a matter of fact, if you recall, the fifty year storm will pass through the Box Culvert without a tailwater. So that's good. So again, based on our review of the plans, my observations during the two site visits that I had out there, again, with our consulting engineer and our project engineer, remember this hydraulic engineer and a civil engineer, and also discussions with the US Army Corps. I actually talked with Corey Rose from the US Army Corps of Engineers. We came to the conclusion that this plan, as it has now been revised with the proposed mitigation, will not only protect and maintain the functions and values that have been provided by these regulated resources, but also will maintain the ecological integrity of the stream corridor. Now, one thing that we didn't mention that probably should be as part of the record is that at this point, our total disturbance in the wetlands is 2,295 square feet or point o five acres. And the area of disturbance within the Upland Review area, which I believe is a 100 feet, is 8,457 square feet or point one nine acres.
Erosion and sedimentation controls have been been in the plans all this time for the construction for the construction time. The plans, as you recall, have been revised. I believe some additional things were put in there, including some erosion blankets for some of the steeper, slopes. And I think there's something in the plans for that. So, again, I could share, I have the ability to share my report and also share the plans, which could have done, I guess, for everyone. And I'd be open to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
George, we do have Andrew on. I don't know if Andrew wants to Oh, I didn't see him. Sorry, Andrew. Follow-up. No problem. Oh, there you are.
No picture. No picture. Video's gone. I can't remember. I don't know. You're on, Andrew. Thanks.
No. I really don't have anything to add. I think you've pretty much covered everything. Know?
I'll interject then to see if any of the commissioners have questions for the applicants or their agents. I'll begin with one question for George Logan to the effect. When would of course, as we know, barberry is most readily removed from the soil and slightly moist. It seems to me that in terms of the construction sequence, would it be appropriate to address that removal early on during, for example, in construction section, I believe number three is to start removing vegetation in the direct path of the proposed crossing. Would it be appropriate to address the invasive removal at that time during the construction sequence?
It could be done at any time. Obviously, sooner the better so that you have because my thought is you're gonna have to look at the barberry removal for two seasons, and be dealing with resprouting that will happen from the root masses that are still in a lobe. It doesn't happen very, very much based on my experience, but it does happen. So it could be done at any time. Obviously, the earlier it's done, the better in the season for removal purposes. So you're not dealing with a big mass and new growth and that will happen pretty quickly in the spring season as the shrub will continue growing. It's already leafing out.
It's already leafing. It's one of the first ones that leaf out. The invasive seem to do that all the time for some reason. Was looking the
you notice any bittersweet on the side? I know when we did our sidewalk, the barberry was quite evident. I wondered if
Obviously, did not focus on barberry because I was looking more for mitigation within the wetlands. I didn't notice any specifically, but as you know, it's there. I mean, I don't have to guess too long. And it would not be necessarily in the wetlands, it would be at the edges of the wetlands and in the upland areas. But if there was a big infestation, I would have tagged it, but I did not see a big infestation, but it's likely there. Okay.
That you cannot yank, unfortunate. Without you have to- Lord knows. The cut and paint. Lord knows.
Yeah, I'm looking at it in my backyard. I've been struggling with it for about ten years. Okay, any other questions from the commission?
Chairman Elliot? Yeah. I know as we reviewed the plan, one of the recommendations was to build a bridge. And we ruled that out because it was cost prohibitive. And I just was looking to get an understanding for what the cost magnitude would be to put a bridge in versus the other stuff we were doing because it seems to me that a bridge would be a better mechanism might not be most feasible but jimmy: To just rule it out and say cost prohibitive. Don't think allows us on the Commission to do the due diligence to make sure that we are making the right decision. Jimmy: So I'm trying to get a feel for, you know, what was the increase in cost if we were to put a bridge in there as opposed to the The box culvert and the other pipe,
if you will. I don't know for sure what the bridge would be. I'm sure it will be order of magnitudes more than what we're proposing here. But I would also mention that, the Army Corps of Engineers would not recommend a bridge here. They would be fine with the box culverts, which is actually what we're doing for the larger watershed and the larger brook. So when you look at feasible and prudent alternatives, actually where economics come in, it's not the only thing, obviously, You cannot just base it on economics, you know that very well. But it's a balancing act. And the other thing you wanna do is to say, okay, what function am I going to increase by using a different best management practice via bridge? Is it going to allow for more, say, wildlife movement through? Well, not really, not based on the resources that is here. Wildlife will either pass through the box culvert or pass over. What are we gaining with a bridge? The only thing that we're gaining obviously is a little less direct impact within the wetland. But again, you've seen the wetland down there and you've seated in context of the overall wetland. So there's a very large wetland, even though it's been used in the past as pasture to the down gradient. And of course, you have a larger wetland upgrading, which flares out. Once you get past just further north a little bit, the wetland flares out and goes behind all those houses and it's shaded by the hill on the other side. So again, I have to look at it from a perspective, what are you gaining? What are you losing?
And if what you're gaining is minimal, I wouldn't say it's nothing if it's minimal, but the price tag goes up to the point where you're now, you will eliminate the project purpose. This will be economically unfeasible at that point, in my view. We did a bridge for a much more high, unique and functional resource in Manchester years ago. And that baby was $250,000 And it was about 65 to 70 foot span, wooden. It was prohibitive. So I don't know, maybe that the prices are better now, but I would think it's an order of magnitude more than what is being proposed here. So let me put it this way. If this was a roadway, I did some work in Litchfield County, and there was a roadway, that went over a corridor which was much, much more significant than this. But there was 25 lots up the hill. So it made economic sense. And so they kind of did a compromise and they had us spanned, it didn't span the entire wetland but it spanned a significant portion of it and the stream. So there's a lot of things that come into play here. My personal professional
view is that a bridge, it would be prohibitive here and we're not getting much.
Wouldn't that I guess my concern is this is the most significant filling of a wetland that we've had come before the Commission since I've been here anyhow. And so I wouldn't want to just dismiss out of hand the improvement that you get by not putting all that fill into the ditch. And maybe the applicant or the engineer has a feel for the price increase. I've seen houses that have had a small wooden bridge go across a wetland to get into it. And so I know it can be done. I don't know what the cost is. That's what I was trying to get the feel for.
I don't know if Andrew can answer that. Yeah, so Andrew Bushnell. So a couple of things to interject here with, you you're looking at a pretty long span here, which is obviously gonna drive the cost of the bridge up. You know, you're gonna need bigger, bigger support beams, abutments. One feedback I've gotten on those wooden bridges through the years has been the lumber's pressure treated and treated not to rock too. And you've got that potentially leaching into the wetland area. Too, you've to consider. You know, a lot of people don't like those just for that fact, the bridges. But you know, I know the bridge George is talking about Manchester and that was an expensive bridge. And I'm sure the cost has gone way up since then, since that bridge was done. You know. So, I mean, the order of magnitude here would be huge as far as increase compared to what we've we've proposed. You know, and then you have to consider too the pressure treated wood and the potential leach and other chemicals from that into the ecosystem
around here.
Okay. I guess, so Chairman Elliott, I do have another question. And I remember from our last meeting, this would be a question for Mr. Gruner. In Mr. Gruner's letter, he did talk about both the bridge and the box culvert. And I recall at the last meeting, Mr. Gruner was still expressing some concerns about the plan that it was presented. I didn't follow all the detail there. I had to go do some research on what riparian waterways were and all that kind of stuff. And so I've tried to do a little bit of homework but I'm still not sure I understood what Mr. Gruner was trying to bring across to us so that we could make the right decision and and I would be interested in hearing from him.
Thank you. Connelly: I believe the box culvert is an improvement. There's there, you know, and I discussed that in in the the letter that I submitted in January. Concerns are more that Jamil You're still, I mean, ideally, when you're faced with a situation like this, you're, you know, the first goal is avoiding a crossing and we talked about the possibility of that coming in off of the other road, was ruled out as a possibility because there wasn't permissions to be able to come in from the backside. Jamil So then the second goal is to try to really minimize the impacts and especially physical impacts fills and changes to the natural ACLU hydrological
dynamics of that system that feeds the Hop River to try to minimize that as much as possible.
If you do, and George had mentioned Mr. Logan had mentioned that, you know, the the Army Corps is okay with the box culvert approach and culverts. But if you read the best management practices document put out by the US Army Corps of Engineers and I'll quote from it. Paul For permanent crossings and non title streams spans are strongly preferred as they before avoid or minimize disruption to the stream bed and avoid entire stream bed reconstruction and maintenance inside the culvert or pipe arch. Paul It there's no doubt that culverts and box called your pipe culverts and culverts can handle the flow of design correctly of water that's coming through there. The question isn't will they allow the water to pass. It's how they allow the water to pass. You have a natural system there and this isn't as easy as two separate intermittent streams. If you look at the the the dynamics of the system there. It widens out fairly quickly and right at the point of where the crossing is and you're really becoming a wetland at that point. It's a much wider span and you mentioned it would require a wide span. That's because you're basically spanning. You know, a system that's that's at that point
in all intents and purposes, a wide wetland Steve that as it normally when it normally floods that spills out across that span and becomes more of a sheet flow that's going down through there and and more of a Controlled flow Steve when you block that fill that and add culverts to pinch points for it. They will handle that flow, even the high levels of water flow that might come in under extreme storm events. But they're not going to flow in the natural way that they normally would through that system. And the concern that I would have it would be that there would be physical alterations that would occur to the both upstream, but more importantly downstream as that affected that system. Steve Which is within close proximity to the Hop River and therefore to the Hop River. There's been several statements about the Steve The significance of the system. Well, once again, you can't look at that those two intermittent streams in that wetlands. Separate from its connectivity to the Hop River system, which is one of the primary natural resources in the town and you know is fed by a series of tributaries and as those tributaries are impacted or their height,
you know, their dynamics are impacted that has an impact on that larger Hop River system. There's been mention of references to wood turtle into the ecology of the organisms, but I would say that's not really the issue. It's not so much the habitat that it provides as a tributary to wood turtles or benthic macroinvertebrates or fish. That's really not the primary function that we're really talking about here is the hydrology of that hop river system. Doctor. Paul And the natural flow versus an altered flow system and my concern is one and I'm not an engineer. So I can't tell you how how that would erode out. But I do know from experience of looking at systems that when you when you channel it when you create culverts you change those dynamics and it's one thing if it was a very defined stream channel that had a discrete upland right next to it that didn't have the flooding characteristics that this that this appears to have. Paul You know that my concerns are that it affects that natural
flow and that potentially has ramifications for the physical characteristics and the you know the the inputs into the potential inputs into the the Hop River system. So those are the concerns that I have. You know the box culverts are certainly improvement because a box culvert is, you know, allows for a better flow than typically than pipes, but I want to emphasize that it's not will it. I don't think anybody would question the fact that it's easy to design and engineer a system that will handle these flows. The question is how they handle those flows and that's I think the challenge that that's there. If you can't avoid and you can't span it, I mean that's the dilemma. That's Okay, Commissioner Larson did that satisfy your inquiry. Yes. Okay. Are there any other questions from the commission.
Chair Elliot I had a thought while that conversation was going on I'd like to add. Go ahead.
Is there any chance you could put two culverts in and get rid of the There are.
Right, there's two culverts out. There's a box culvert to the west and the circular culvert to the east.
Well, would think that the circular culvert, that would be something that would create more of a problem downstream because it would funnel out whatever water is going through there into a small area, area, and possibly create more erosion downstream. And I think, possibly, it would be more difficult for any amphibians or whatever that going upstream, especially on the east side there, where the swamp is. If there's any riparian corridor, that would be where it is going up to that swamp. From my experiences in out in the forest and so forth, that's the place the the that the wildlife will go to. They'll go up to the to the swamp, and that's where they lay their eggs and so forth. And so that's that eastern side, I would think would be if you could put a culvert, even if you put maybe two four foot culverts one for each stream I think possibly would be an improvement. Chairman Elliot could I
could we hold on a minute Mr. Greiner I want to get a response from the applicant. Again, either Mr. Logan or Mr. Bushnell could respond to that question and explain what the, again, the culvert, the present culvert design is intended to accomplish and the rationale for the placement of the culverts in the current plan. Again, we're referencing the plan that's dated 03/01. Excuse me. Yeah. 2021. Correct? 03/10. 03/10. Okay.
Okay. So first off, so the the the the coverage replaced at the low point of the of the flow. In you know, the flow out there, what we've observed and George can confirm is, you know, especially the easterly wetland is not very wide. It's not a very wide channel. You know, the wetlands wide there, it's a pretty, pretty narrow narrow channel of flow, you know, in so we put the the culverts at the lowest point in the inside those wetlands to mimic the flow that's there now, keep it in the same spot, same direction. You know? And as far as, you know, the downstream effect, you can see particularly in the outlet, we put a wide wide pad of riprap there to for velocity control, although it's pretty flat through there. But also to just spread the flow back out if it gets concentrated at all coming through, particularly the the Easterly culvert there. You know, the box culvert will stay the same pretty much the same width that it is flowing at now. You've seen that's a that's an eight foot wide culvert. So, you know, as far as the downstream effect, we've looked at that, and that's why we did what we did with the riprap and the wide riprap pad there for making it as long as we could. You know, I don't know that adding you know, right now we have two culverts there, so I'm not sure we're getting at adding more. I mean, both culverts can pass up to the hundred year storm and still leave freeboard on the driveway. And it was a fifty year storm that can pass without any any head headwater
on the on the pipe that could water flow freely flow through.
Can I can I just emphasize that last point there? Is that standard which comes from the Army Corps of Engineers is that the system's, the culvert should be able to support the fifty year storm with continuous flow, no pressure. So, you know, there is channelization and control of the flow, the direction of the flow of the water through the culvert, but up to the fifty year storm event, there is no increase in the velocity that the water will flow through the system. That's a design standard that it's meeting.
George Loeben here just in response to some of these comments. I did submit a report early on, and that was on January 22, at which point I looked at what was happening there. It was right after a storm, which was fortuitous, I suppose. I provided a couple of pictures that show something that's I think very important to note. That's photo two and photo three. All of the photos are important. But photos two and three in particular show that what happens just past where these two streams basically coalesce, there's a very wide flat wetland corridor there. And it has been denuded of vegetation over the years since I believe in part it was used as the place for horses to run when it was dry. I don't think that's happening now. But what you will see from these photos is that the channels just pass where we're crossing, and if we could cross further down, it will be maybe different, but this is where we keep the only place we are allowed to based on the easement. It flattens out. So all these velocities that we're concerned about are just basically spread out, completely spread out over a 100 feet. And then if you look at the last photograph, photo four, which is a true channel that's four or five feet wide and gushing with water at that time,
that's water from our watersheds, but also from another watershed with a much larger stream that's coming off east and coming in, and then that goes down to the Hop River. And so I was at the perfect time to see what a storm would do during the non growing season, obviously, when you don't have a lot of vegetative evapotranspiration and the like. So my view is that this is very typical for these kinds of streams to, as a matter of fact, very often the question that you ask is, okay, what storm do you wanna put through? And usually the DOT standard would be, depending on what kind it is, up to a twenty five year storm. We're passing at 50 without a problem for small intermittent streams with limited watersheds. I know it's all interconnected and that's important. I just don't see it as a professional life science scientist, as an ecologist, that this is really something that's going to detrimentally affect the corridor and downstream, in particular, the habitat. You you gotta make the decision based on what's there, not based on maybe, well, but this will be better if we did a bridge. You gotta look at the conditions that are there. And, again, my professional opinion is that even before when we had just a 36 inch pipe was sufficient because it passes the storm that's most likely to erode the stream, that's the two year storm. You look anywhere, that's the particular storm for intermittent streams that you're you're worried about because they they're they're erosive. They can erode and increase the channel, enlarge the enlarge the channel. We're not increasing impervious surfaces here from the watershed, so that's not an issue.
So it's just a matter of allowing the flow to get through. And with these oversized box cover box covering and the thirty six one, that shouldn't be a problem at all. Again, I think you should look carefully at those pictures that I provided, in my first report. I think they're very instructive. What you will see on photo one is the Western Intermittent Stream at at full full flow, full bank. And if you look at it, you'll see, yes, it does spread, but then once it it goes past that choke point, it spreads out and water goes all over the place, just left, right, center. And that's what it's been doing for many, many years. So I don't see an issue here. Honestly, I do not. I think this is a normal situation that I've seen many, many times where you cross an intermittent stream and you put a culvert. You try to size it correctly, and in this particular case, it's oversized
in order to comply with the US Army Corps, and DEP, guidelines, which we were more than happy to do. Hello. You're muted.
Okay, I'm gonna ask Mr. Gruner to hold off on his comments until we've satisfied all the questions from the commissioners and then we'll go back to basically public comment at that point. Okay, remember we're not trying to get engaged in a debate here but rather to receive information. So once again, I'll ask we've heard from Commissioners Larson and Monroe are there any further questions for the applicants or their agents? Commissioner Elliott? Yes.
This is Jim Halsey. I have a question through the chair to George. Okay. What I heard was that there was no increase in impervious surfaces. That, did I hear that accurately?
I think what I said, there's no increase in pervious surfaces within the watershed. Meaning, you know, sometimes when you hear when there's an increase in pervious surfaces in the watershed, often what happens is the volumes of water increase even though you might be detaining them for those zero increase in runoff. That's what I meant. There's no increase of impervious surfaces within the watershed.
Well, I mean, the development itself is creating impervious surfaces.
Not for the Western Stream. That watershed is completely off-site. Thank you. Okay.
All right. If there are no further questions or requests from the Commission, I'd like to open it up now to members of the public who have comments on the proposed activity on the application. Be sure to identify yourself for the record. I guess everybody's got names now, and our recording secretary, of course, has to be aware of who is addressing the Commission at any time. So again, please be sure to identify if you want to speak first of all, can either, as they say, raise your hand literally or figuratively with the appropriate control for the Zoom meeting. And I'll ask Board Clerk Mindy to also assist me in identifying who wants to speak because I may not catch that move. I'm looking at a grid here and it's hard to know who wants to speak up. So again, any comments from the public regarding the application? I'd like to speak. Okay, I'll recognize Scott Person first and I believe
Joe Allard will be next in line. Okay, go first if he'd like, George. If he had his hand up first. Did he really? Okay. Okay, so Joe Allard.
My name is Joe Allard. I'm at 52 Pine Ridge Street with Pine Ridge, which is just down the street from this proposed project. And I do have that stream running through my backyard and granted it doesn't run all the time, but I would like George Logan to come take a look and see how the photography of my land is and how my neighbors is, because that stream can come up pretty doggone high. Now I have a walkout basement and there was a time when I thought that I wanted to put up sandbags because I was afraid that I was gonna have water come in my basement. My neighbor shares the same thing. He's got water that comes up high into his backyard, although it hasn't come into our basements yet, but it does come up pretty high. Now we talked about restriction with a box and all, and yes, it will restrict it, but we got free flow there right now. And in a good storm, the water comes up pretty high in my backyard, in my neighbor's backyard. Now we're gonna put a COVID box in there and okay, maybe it'll hold it for a little while, but what if someone forgets to clean it? Where does that put me? It's a fine and dandy thing that you want to build a house there. I have no objection to building a house there, but what are the ramifications down the road when I have a problem, or when my neighbor has a problem? I know that when they bought this property, they couldn't have gone into it blind.
They knew that this was gonna be a wetland, that it was gonna be an expensive project. We're gonna just throw a COVID box in there and boy, it's cured. You don't see, we don't see the problems that are really gonna happen down the road until after they happen. And then how are we gonna deal with them? That's all I got to say. Okay, thanks for the comment. Okay, so Scott Persona.
Hey, thank you George. I just want to give you a little bit of history on this property. All that property aside from Pine Ridge Drive subdivision was owned by the Stanley family. Pine Ridge Drive subdivision was put in '57 and access at the end of Pine Ridge was given to the Stanley so they could still access their property. Stanley Drive and Old Farms was first put in the subdivisions up there, there was a remaining 30 acres which was divided into three parcels. I'm just telling you this because there is a little bit of history that goes along with this. Two houses came in from Endy Road, the other one had access from Pine Ridge. The Wetlands Commission wanted the one from Pine Ridge to alternatively have access from Old Farms. So the access was given up at Old Farms and they got their building lot off of that 14 acre parcel up there. Landowner gave the access to the 14 acres and the landowner didn't want access given to anyone else. And I knew the landowner from the 14 acres. So you know, he's since passed, but he did have a hard time even getting wetlands permission from the wetlands commission because of the wetlands issue, there's a brook that comes right past that driveway with the other run coming off of old. Okay, so now,
but that's where we are today and now the new landowner wants to cross 70 feet of wetlands, cross two intermittent streams and disturb the associated upland, the wetlands in the upland review area associated with a 70 feet of wetlands. We've had expert testimony from Hank Gruner, the herpetologist, that is a major riparian corridor. It's the intersection of two intermittent streams, it turns into wetlands, 100 feet away there's another intermittent stream that I know has brook trout in it and two twenty feet away is the Hop River. If I can't even imagine there could be a more critical riparian habitat than what Ank has depicted in this lengthy depiction of this project area. So this is definitely a regulated activity. Per Connecticut General Statute 42 and associated definitions, which I'm sure every wetlands commissioner knows by heart. And those are the things that the Wetlands Commission is going to be taking into account when they look at this application. So the wetlands definitions, the wetlands state definitions
says you cannot divert flows, this is, and anybody can read it, read it that they want to, it's CGS 42, says in there that you cannot defer flow, you can't erect permanent structures, and you can't fill wetlands. I mean those are three of the major things that are happening with this crossing. You're going to put 2,300 square feet of fill in the wetlands. I just, I don't understand how any design features that anyone can dream up would ever change the fact that we're gonna put it 2,300 square feet of fill into two intermittent streams in the wetlands and the upland review. I don't understand how any design feature other than a bridge that goes completely across. There's other things in that CGS42 like pollution, which could be erosion, once you channelize those intermittent streams in the wetlands, there's going be erosion, but you're diverting the flows into separate panels not, that doesn't, none and of that helps in the protection of our wetlands. The wetlands are the only wetlands that this, that the state of Connecticut has right now. Every time you fill a wetland, don't ever get those wetlands back. Those are filled wetlands, they're gone forever and the riparian corridor and you can say what you want about there's no turtles or there is turtles, but you know I live around the rivers and I know that there's a ton of turtles along that hot river corridor, which is 200 feet away. Okay. These regulations are for the protection of our wetlands. One thing that I would state, and this is not a risk of harming the wetlands, this project will harm the wetlands as I stated, and will be a permanent and irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetlands.
Also consider the harmful effects of this regulated activity to the associated wetlands outside of this area, meaning the Hop River. But what I'm trying to say is that when you're checking on dysregulated activity, you're not tasked with just this regulated activity, you're tasked with the regulated activity and the associated wetlands and Lupin Riverview areas that's associated with this activity, but not just this activity. Lastly, would like to say that there has been a feasible and prudent alternative by our herpetologist. He said span the whole area and that would be your feasible and prudent alternative. To me filling 2,300 acres forever, forever you're going to fill this 2,300 acres of wetlands
and the 8,500 square feet of upland review you're going to disturb. I think it's a major thing the Wetlands Commission needs to look really closely at this and that's all I have to say.
Okay, thank you Mr. Pousseau for those comments. Again, do we have further comments from members of the public who are on the call? Okay,
Mr. Gruner, guess you're up again. I guess I'm in the members of the public. Thank you, Mr. Elliott. May I pose a question to the to the applicant. Sure.
Thank you. I'm curious if you considered you made a revision to install to remove one of the pipes and install a box culvert. Did you look at the potential installation of two box culverts trying to create larger span through through to two separate box culverts of width. At the one crossing.
Well, there's two different there's there's two quarter two stream quarters coming in. So you have two point you had two points where you had you had two separate pipes. Originally. Now you have a box culvert and a pipe, correct? That's correct. Did you look at two separate box culverts?
We did, I believe. Eric and George can answer that also. We did.
Not feasible from a installation standpoint or a cost standpoint or?
Cost is a factor. These are not inexpensive things. And you know, knowing that the Western Stream was the larger of the two watersheds, we decided to take the one that we knew was going to meet the design standard for the Army Corps and place it in the larger watershed. Thank you.
Okay, do we have further public comments? Do we have further questions from the Commission?
Chairman Elliot, I do have one other comment that certainly when we talk about alternatives considered and not chosen, one of the alternatives that we are not choosing. And I understand very well why we're not is Jeff Right now, that is a single lot for one house to be built on to have access not going through to Pine Ridge Drive. You know, the purpose of the project is is to subdivide after we get clearance through here, but that jimmy: That is an alternative is to use it is it's currently intended to have one house on the site and have the access from Old Farms Road is is it was originally intended. Jimmy: So I didn't see that written up in the application. I know that does not suit the applicants desire at all. Jimmy: But that is the current approved jimmy: Lot function, if you will.
What I understand you to say then is that simply put, either denial of the permit application or conditions that make it impractical for the applicants would essentially preclude subdivision. And further that the approval of the application would not necessarily guarantee approval of subdivision. Is that a correct understanding of your comment?
Yes, right now we have one lot and we have access that doesn't impact the wetlands at all. And that's the way the lot was planned out. Right now we're looking to build two houses in there. And I think that's a great idea. It does have significant wetlands implications with it that, as the lot is right now, are not necessary to disturb the wetlands. That's correct.
Again fact that we want to build two houses in there that causes the need to go through the wetlands.
Right. The application is essentially perspective. Just as, for example, the application for a permit on Lake Road that we recently considered. At that point, applicants were speculatively interested in the property and required a would knew that would require a permit. So, they applied for the permit knowing that if they didn't get it, they wouldn't be able to proceed. You know, there there'll be no point in acquiring the property. Likewise, in this situation, the application for a wetland crossing is prospective in the sense that if the permit application is denied, then it would be pointless to pursue the project any further. There's no way that they could acquire and subdivide the property without that approval. So, think that they're really although it's germane, I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant to the fundamental question here is whether or not we can permit this activity. Right, I agree.
Moving along then. If we will, of course, have an opportunity for further discussion of the proposal in the context of a regular meeting. For the hearing, however, again our purpose is to obtain information and comment and we've done that and again failing any further comments, questions from the commissioners or response from the applicant or the applicant's agents, should be able to conclude the hearing. I see Mr. Logan with a hand raise and so I'll recognize him for comment.
Thank you. So there's a few things that I that have occurred to me as I've been listening to the public and to the commissioners and their concerns. That is one thing that I noticed is that we were discussing this whole thing as to the subdivision and where access can be gained, etcetera. And it is obvious to me that whenever this property was cut out and made in its current configuration, if it was not anticipated that a access to the eastern portion of the side would could not be gained from Pine Ridge Road, then that access strip would not would not be there, but it is. So that's that's one thing kind of to consider. If there was expected that that strip would be used at some point. Now I understand the whole issue with wetland impacts. So when I look at wetland impacts, obviously you look at direct impacts and you look at indirect impacts. And you have to look at physical impacts. And that's what the courts have told us. We can't even consider wildlife. You do not regulate wildlife. You knew that, of course, you regulate the habitat that they use. So when it comes to the direct impact, the thing that we try to do is sort of a balancing act. And I think what has happened so far in these past few months is exactly an example of how the process works, where the pipes were increased in size. And then we have a box culvert to satisfy Connecticut Corps, Connecticut EPA and Army Corps directives or guidelines. So that's the issue. Think the crux of the matter is the direct impact because the indirect impacts, I think we've been discussing them here, but think they
kind of certainly fall into certain categories. So the indirect physical impacts fall into erosion during construction or after construction. For instance, if you had an undersized culvert, they will be concentrating the flow and increasing the velocity and all that, that obviously will be a concern. That's not the case here. We're passing the fifty year storm without a tail tailwater situation. So you look at the water quantity issue and the water quality issue. Obviously, we're not affecting the hydrology of the wetlands above or below, really, because we're just letting the water go through. This is just a single driveway. It's not gonna affect the water quality of the entire system. That's it especially in the post construction, just one car going back and forth, is not an issue when you look at the entire system. And this is a
large wetland system, and you have to consider what's there. And then it comes down to, I think, the physical, the feasible and prudent alternatives. And that's usually the sticky point. I agree. That's usually the sticky point. However, if you look at the definition of feasible and alternatives, it really is a balancing act, and it has to consider socioeconomic considerations as long as this is not the only factor that it's considering, and as long as we can agree that the direct impacts are not that adverse and significant and egregious. Yes, they are. And I don't think they are. I mean, we see these kinds of crossings fairly often. So I know that Scott talked about, Everyone's been talking about the bridge, but the bridge again, it's the socioeconomic
issue, it's prohibitive. By saying we'll do a bridge, but basically we don't have a project. Everyone knows that. And unfortunately, can't wield that unless you do it very carefully. And it has to be connected to what are you really gaining? What are you really gaining? Are you gaining better functionality of the water courses that are here in the wetlands? I would argue not, because with all the precautions have been taken, and so the physical impacts to the wetlands, the indirect ones, have been really, truly minimized. I just want to point out that this is usually a balancing act. You have to look at the direct impact and ask the question, has it been minimized?
Has it been avoided? Has it been minimized? And I believe it has been minimized. If you go to the extra step and say, Well, we want a bridge, you're basically pulling the rug under the applicant and saying, Sorry, you don't have project, because that's exactly what's gonna happen. And when that happens, you have to start thinking of one little thing that is in the back of my head. Is that a taking? That's a legal term. I don't think that we want to enter into that category and be thinking of that. I think we just need to look at what's happening at this particular crossing. Maybe at the end of the day, if the Commission started saying, based on Hank Gruner's obvious recommendation by just posing the question of, although I would say it's not necessary, but would a box culvert at the second crossing be a good thing? And would that help us to get over the hump, if you will, and pass the litmus test, get to the threshold
situation? I don't know the answer to that because I'm not the applicant, but I would ask that question. And it's either a yes or a no. And if it's a yes, yes, we can consider it. And maybe that's something that helps us to get over the hump and create a situation that's better than what is there now, even though I don't think it's significantly adverse to the resources. And I'll shut up here. I've said enough. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for your informed comments. Once again, I'll ask if there are any further comments from the public. It looks like Joe Allard is raising his hand.
Okay, thank you. Mr. Allard, did you have further comments?
Yes, I made a comment before I believe I was the first one, but where does it end if we give permission to fill in the wetland or to put in a COVID? How many other applicants are gonna come by and wanna do the same thing to another piece of property? I understand there was one that was down a little further soccer field over at the other end of the river, the Hop River, behind the library. I understand it was a property over there and he had some wetland issues. Are we going to bend here now, and then again for this man here? Or how about my son-in-law who's got 14 acres by the Hop River? He wants to put up a barn down there, he wants to put up a garage, but it's wetlands. Are we gonna make an allowance for that too? He can't get a permit and he knows he can't, so he doesn't even try.
But should he try? How many people are we gonna encourage? Now, you walk this property, and I think everybody should, and see how that funnels, everything funnels in right at that point. There's a stream that was running down there Sunday when I was over by back one of the neighbor's properties, and it's been dry for how long? And again, I'm saying that my property, Mr. Logan should take a look at my property because he's talking about arduous and he's talking about minimum and he's talking all these nice words to this little piece of property over there. But really take a look downstream, Take a look upstream. If that is choked off, take a look upstream. Where's the impact? Sure, that's like a big sponge down there right now. And as dry as I've seen it, it was still like a big sponge down there. You're gonna have an impact no matter what you do down there. And if you're gonna allow it there, then you're gonna have to allow it somewhere else down the line as well. Where do you stop? Where does the bending stop? Thank you.
Okay. And once again, I'm looking for hands raised and seeing none, I'm going to oh, Mr. Larson.
Well, I guess I will ask the question to Mr. Logan. Not sure if he's the right person to answer or not. But Mr. Allard in his initial comment was concerned about flooding. Up into his house because of the the stream backing up in I know we said we made allowances for the fifty year storm. Jimmy: I've heard comments that the one hundred year storm happens every year now. And I'm just trying to get over the hump, if you will, on understanding how do we address Mr. Lard's comment that if you put in the restrictions that we're talking about, what makes him not have to worry?
I would say that's probably a question for the engineer that's above my grade grade, thanks. Okay. So,
is Mr. Bushnell on the call? Yep, I'm right here.
Can hear me? Yeah. So we're passing the one hundred year storm through there. That happens every one hundred years or thereabouts. It does not happen every year. In one hundred year storm, you're talking almost seven inches of rain in a twenty four hour period. So I think the last one occurred back in, I think it was six in this area. So, you know, it could very well occur more than every 100 years or, you know, but it's not gonna occur every year. You know, and, you know, basically if that ever got backed up enough, it would just go right over the top of the driveway and keep going, you know. So I don't really see much of an issue there, you know, as far as flooding.
So what you're saying then is that the backup that any that essentially that the upstream impact will not constitute an obstruction or as it were a dam that would cause further impoundment of water or further buildup of water
in the upstream area. Right. I mean, the driveway is at an elevation 188. You can see where you hit elevation 188 pretty quick, you know, on the plan there. It cuts across, you know. So probably about, you know, the most that would that would be about a 100 feet upstream is the most that would that would ever back up. And that would be even more than a hundred year storm. So yeah. George? Okay. Question for Mr. Prasad.
You guys keep going back to all these design things, one hundred year storm, five hundred year storm, box culvert, round culvert. It all goes back to the same thing. It all goes back to the wetlands regulations. If you were in a perfect world and somebody's going to put a pipe in the Upland Review area on a brook, that's completely different. That's a completely different thing. Now you're talking about filling 70 feet of wetlands and the associated upper review area with it, that is completely against the regulations that Connecticut Environmental Protection Agency put forth to protect the wetlands that you guys are tasked with tonight. The filling is the thing here, the filling, the obstructing of the flows, the pollutions, the pollutions are in different ways, it's not like a, isn't in fact there's pollution if a car drips some oil or something, but it's also thermal pollution, it's pollution from the water that you're going to be damming up at the end of those pipes because it's going to dam it up.
You guys have to read CGS 42 and the related definitions and make your determination on that. I don't care if it's a thousand year flood, it doesn't have anything to has to do with the field and the regulations and how you guys are tasked with reading them. And that's all I have to say.
So, Allard, do you have your hand raised again? Okay.
Yeah, one last comment here is, yeah, you're talking about fifty year storms, you're talking about one hundred year storms. I'm not talking about fifty and one hundred year storms when that thing wants to back up. That thing will back up in the spring when you've got an ice dam and down downstream from me, it can back up then. In fact, that's when it most likely to back up all the way up to my garden area. So what about the winter, when there's ice back over there and it backs up? Now, we've had good heavy rains and that water comes down at a torrent. And so there's another time it can happen. I don't think I've seen a fifty year storm or a hundred year storm, but I don't want to either. Thank you.
Okay. Having seen no further requests for comment, I'm going to entertain a motion to adjourn the hearing. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.
Okay, the objection for the commission. Seeing none, we'll consider the hearing adjourned. Thank you for your attendance. We'll proceed now with about a five second pause to the regular meeting. I'll call the regular meeting to order. The roll call and seating of alternates the same as for the hearing. Item three: additions and changes to the agenda. I'm going to propose one change under item six old business. I want to add consideration of IWWC 2,036 as in the hearing as item number 6A and of course then 6a I w w c 2,130 becomes 6b that's the only change I would propose and I will move that change are there other changes to the agenda for members of Commissioner suggested by the agent? Okay. So, do we have consent to change the agenda or any objection to changing the agenda for members of the commission? No objection here.
Okay, so we will then proceed to item number four, approval of minutes from our 03/01/2021 meeting. Are there any changes? I have one typo which I have to find in the meantime. Has anybody else noted any? You're looking for a motion first,
Commissioner Elliott? Okay. Yeah, if you want to have a motion to approve the minutes of 03/01/2021 as written as submitted. And a second arson seconds.
Okay, now we can discuss. They say I have one change that I have to find again and ask commissioners if they have noted any other corrections or revisions of the minutes. Mindy, noticed a small typo in on the first page it's about line 20 about two or three is the way down the line reads add item 11c revision on regulations and scheduled hearings that should be revision of. Got it. Any other revisions or corrections. I have none. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Chad or Bill. Any no changes. Okay. Then
we can vote on approval as corrected. Those in favor signify by raising your hands. Aye. Okay, motion carries oh and I vote aye my motion carries four-zero-zero. Okay next item on the agenda once I get back to it Okay, public comment since we have already had the hearing I hope that we can pass over that. Okay, and then next we get to All Business Permit Applications. And again, agenda has been modified, Item 6A is IWWC 2,036. This would be the appropriate time for a Commission to discuss the application and, you know, discuss with the applicants where we stand. George, I'm here to pardon? I'm here for the applicant.
That actually has been changed to 28. That's item B. Oh. We just added IWW 2,036 as item A. You'll come next. All right, thank you. Okay. Okay, I guess the first thing I want to check on here is whether the Commission is prepared to vote on the application or whether we need further discussion and potential for negotiating revisions based on public comment and other information that we received. Polar members, Mr. Larson.
I'm not sure how to proceed with the two comments that tug at me are one, how do we ensure that we don't make things worse? And maybe it's not our business. But for the upstream public to be concerned with flooding when we put a restriction in there, that is a concern as well as his other comment on when does it stop? At what point do we say we just can't allow filling of the wetlands? I am not sure. Jimmy: I know the answers to those questions tonight. I'm not sure I would ever know the answer to those questions, but that that troubles me tonight as I sit sit here in Russell without how to proceed. So if you or agent Wagner have anything to enlighten me on, now would be a good time. I'd be happy to hear.
I will comment first. With respect to the upstream impact, yes, that would be an impact that we have to consider and we have to have reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not exacerbate the existing condition. With respect to the other concern, that is to say essentially precedent, we have to we are reviewing one application and we refer we review every application on a case by case basis according to general principles and regulations. Okay, there's nothing in the state statutes that say you cannot put in a wetland crossing that involves culverts and fill. Okay? Otherwise we would not have approved several applications that have come before the Commission during our term. The question for the that the Commission has to wrestle with is how severe is the impact and has the proposed design adequately mitigated the impact that has been identified. I don't know if our agent has any further comment on that, but I'm happy to hear he does.
Nothing. Think all of the decisions are the commissions. We've had a lot of good input. I don't think I could really add anything other than what the experts have said. So I'll leave it at that. Okay, thank you. Other Commissioners. Mr. Halsey,
Mr. Monroe. I'm just trying to recall the most current comment we had from the town engineer, whether he had actually commented on the most current plan. I did read comments but I can't recall the sequence to be honest.
Do you have a response to that? Let's see. I believe we're looking at a revision dated March 10 although it's identified as a PDF file as 3.1.21. Meaning March 1 George is that three point Well, again, that's what is dated. If you know, if you're looking at the documents that are posted online, the PDF file with the wetland crossing plan is shows REV3.1.21, although as engineer Bushnell pointed out, the actual data revision was three ten. That would have been extremely fast turnaround from our March 1 meeting when you think about it. So I guess the you know the essential question for the Commission here is, you know, does the plan and both the engineering plan and the recommendations from Mr. Logan satisfy the requirements for permitting the activity and is the degree of mitigation sufficient relative to the impact of the project. Chair Elliot? Yes. Going to go again.
I was when you say mitigation. We're filling it. We're, we're tasked with voting on saying yes or no to somebody. This project which is going to be filling in some quite a few square feet of wetlands. I understand what a pain and you know, what the barberry is. I have it in my yard and I know it's a hard thing to deal with and it's a nuisance, but I don't know if that is a level of mitigation that's an equal to filling in wetlands. And it's not really right where we're talking about anyway. This area, you know, the day that we did our walk out there, the sidewalk, it was dry bone dry. So I can't really see it like we didn't even I didn't even notice it hardly except that it dipped way down. I did remember that, but it was bone dry because we were in a drought.
So it's hard to try and picture that as a wet area that's going to be filled in. And, but since that's what it is, it's a wetland that we're going to test, you know, saying yes or no to filling. I think we should do everything that we can to truly mitigate the disturbance there. And if there's something more that they can do, I guess the span is not feasible. But if you can put a couple of culverts in there, open it up as much as you possibly can. And maybe even put a pipe too, if you have, if you, you know, it's like, just open it as much as you can physically do so that the water will pass through. And I know wildlife is not really our issue, but it'll also help the wetlands on either side of the berm. If you open it up as much as you can, it will help. And that's what we should do as much as we can do is that's feasible. And if it means, you know, just that to me, the tube is I don't like it. I don't like the idea of it there. It just seems like that's gonna get clogged up the way the woods are. There's so much debris out there. Unless somebody's out there cleaning up the woods all the time, it's eventually something's gonna fall and it's gonna get clogged up. And then that's going to create a problem
upstream. The whole weapons is going to get flooded, washed out potentially. So if they could, if the engineer could open it up a little as much as possible, then maybe
that's the best we could do for the wetlands. That's it.
One comment, Mr. Monroe, do take a look at the photographs that Mr. Logan already referenced. They're in the file online. Hold on a second here while I pull that up. It's identified in the applications as letter from G Logan to Chairman 1.22.21 and as he said fortuitously he was there after a fairly heavy rainfall and the photographs that he provides do show, clearly show the stream characteristics, and as you referenced the flow through the area where the crossing would exist and also downstream where it fans out into a broad riparian corridor. So I think you can get us, you can very much get a sense of the stream crossing area and the actual stream
characteristics from those photographs. And again, with respect to the question of mitigation, recall that mitigation doesn't just mean one to one offsetting. What it means is you know doing the best to minimize the impact and things like removing barbarian and replacing would be more or less icing on the cake. Okay.
No, again, I'll ask the the applicants more specifically in this case, think Mr. Bushnell will be best to respond to the question about doing the most you can to ensure that there's no upstream impact of the activity and the questions about, you know, potential for, in effect, creating a dam by way of obstructing stream flow.
You know, would say that the most we could do would be the eight foot wide box culvert. You know, multiple structures, the problem with putting multiple structures side by side, couple of things. One is you scour in between them, trying to keep the water from infiltrating in between them, scouring out between them. You know, and the channels out there, I don't think are wide enough to warrant a second structure on either side. I mean, eight foot's plenty wide enough, three foot's plenty high enough, even with 25% of it buried to get the hundred year storm through there. Know, as far as upstream potential, I just took a quick look at the topography there on the on the aerial topography from the the GIS site. I mean, appears that those houses are quite a bit higher than that one eighty eight that I'm, you know, that I'm showing there, you know, as far as as far as the upstream impact. So, you know. The colors are gonna give you the least chance of any any plugging too, you know, something that's that big, you know, a stick isn't gonna plug that or or leaves or anything that would plug like a 15 inch pipe, you know. That's where you see plugging of culverts, you know, when you get to the smaller diameters, fifteen, eighteen, even, you know, 20 fours can get plugged up with sticks and things, you know. Ice dams forming, they're gonna form whether we put this crossing in or not. You're still gonna have the potential of of ice dams forming out, you know, I don't see that being a real potential there, though. It's not that kinda, that's an intermittent stream,
you know, so. I
just want to say the eight foot wide culvert or the open box culvert that is situated closer to the properties on Pine Ridge Road. It's not the other side. It's again, it's eight feet wide, the types of obstructions that, you know, it's hard to imagine what would dam that up. And then also just the least restriction of the flow of the two pipes is on the side where people's homes are, people's properties are.
Chair Milley? You're muted. I'm going to go ahead and talk. I think you said yes looking at your lips there. Read my lips, yes. I
would recommend and I would be happy to make a motion if that's the way to do it, that we have our engineer review the plan to just give us the due diligence to make sure that the upstream homeowners aren't going to be negatively impacted by the design that we're looking at.
Okay, let me just check here but we did of course already we had a review. We did and that was
dated January 25 from engineer Hanfield. It certainly appears that the you know the design certainly as currently presented seems to address all of the comments and considerations that were brought forth by Andrew Hanfield in his review.
We got public comment tonight that I think important and we need to make sure that I think that we don't negatively impact those homeowners by the actions that we take.
Okay. So your motion would be to ask a review of those specific considerations? Yes. A review that would address those specific considerations from based on the public comment during the hearing.
And he might say the existing plan is fine. He might say put in the two box culverts. Don't know what he'd say, but I'd sure feel better having the professional that's representing those homeowners before we vote to take action one way or Not the
representing the homeowners, but advising the commission on the relevance of those comments. Right. And I would okay so if you want to make that in the form of a motion I would entertain that and ask for a second. I'll second.
Okay, so we've got a motion by Commissioner Larson, second by Commissioner Hallisey to request an engineering review to address specifically comments regarding upstream impact potential upstream impact of the current design correct we stated.
Correct. Yes. Elliot, I still have a concern. I do have a concern. Don't want to make it sound that's the only concern that I have. I do have a concern that Pat Gruner has made some comments. I don't know as though I haven't really fully digested them. I still want to conclude revisiting any other issues besides the engineering report sort of trying to say.
Okay well are there other aspects specifically you want the engineer to address if we're going to ask I for
would just like to revisit Mr. Gruener's comments in context of what was stated this evening.
Okay, would that be appropriate for the engineering report or are we looking at some other?
I'm just saying I would like the opportunity to review Mr. Bruner's report again and if it could future concerns still be brought up at the next meeting. I got the sense that the only issue that could be raised would be an engineer would be. Well that's the only thing we're asking an engineer to review. So I'm not asking the engineer to review anything. I'm just asking, I'm just saying that we'd like the opportunity to review Hank Kroner's report.
Right, but that's not germane to this motion. The motion here is to get an engineering review. We can separately address any other considerations that you want to revisit as well. But you know since I thought we were limiting.
No, I'm only trying to specify what we're going to ask the engineer to do. Okay. I have
no concerns for the engineer. Yeah, I don't want to give the engineer an open ended brief since we're really concerned with, you know, one specific question which is to say and again it's related to the public comment about the potential for upstream impact. Now clearly, engineer Bushnell has the opinion that we don't need to worry about that but I was asking for a second opinion okay okay so are we are we clear on the motion is there any further discussion on the motion to get an engineering review here?
That would be specifically with respect to upstream impact concerning flooding of upstream properties.
Exactly. That might entail taking up public's offer to inspect the property too. Remember, the engineering review so far has been essentially confined to the area of direct impact because the engineering consultants and ecological consultants didn't have explicit permission to inspect further upstream. So, we might need to include that request for permission in the request for review. Okay, so we've got the motion and a second and I'll ask for a roll call vote Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye.
Commissioner Halsey. Aye. And I also vote aye, so the motion carries four-zero-zero. And I guess, Mr. Wagner, that will probably be your responsibility to secure that, to request that engineer and review or work that out, the details
with our consultant. I'll take care of that in a Okay,
so moving on. Commissioner Hallisey, you mentioned again wanting to revisit Mr. Gruner's comments or to have a little further consideration of those comments. Are you proposing that we do that now or? No, I just want to up to a meeting. I just didn't want to in light of the fact that we're going to have to revisit this question that we raised this proposal application once we receive the engineering report.
I'm sorry there's a little technical difficulty and I was talking over you because I didn't think you were talking.
Know things keep bouncing in and out for me too. It's one of the great frustrations of Zoom meetings. Okay, do you want to bring up the reconsideration of Mr. Gruner's comments now or do you want to defer that to subsequent meeting?
I don't know for a fact that it needs further discussion. I just wanted an opportunity to review the matter and I just didn't want to show up at the next meeting with the understanding that we would not bring up anything other than the engineers, the comments from the engineer. That's all. That's all I asked. No, no, I think that everything
is still on the table as far as commissioner's deliberations, considerations are concerned. Okay, do we have any further questions or comments from the Commission regarding the application? Anything that might be addressed to the applicants or their agents? Nope.
Okay, seeing none I would like to move on to our next item on the agenda with some hope of finishing this meeting today. We have an application from the town of Andover, IWCWC2103, for activities at the Doris Chamberlain Nature Pond. I believe that, yeah, Mr. Person, Sultan Person is still on the call and going to address that. I believe we have some updates on that. There were some photographs posted by our agent Mr. Wagner on his visit on April 8. So again, the application is to essentially clear brush and tree branches surrounding the pond to enhance its value for recreation. Everybody have the application in hand? Any questions or comments?
I'd like to make a motion to approve the application.
Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Larson. I'll ask for a second. Second.
Okay, that was didn't recognize your voice. Was that Mr. Munro or Ms. Hallisey? Hallisey. Okay, so a second from Hallisey to approve the application. So now we are open for discussion on the motion. I want to revisit one question in the application. We refer to work around the edge. You'll have to forgive me a moment while I sift through my documents to find that application. Okay, so the work includes not only activities on the perimeter of the watercourse but removal of deadfall that has lodged in the watercourse. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. I think we're all probably familiar with the pond. The Conservation Commission has of course previously applied for and received approval for activities in the review area for the water course, including improvements to the trail that connects the parking area to the bike and walking pathways known as the Percy Cook Trail. And the Conservation Commission has approved the activity. So unless there are further questions or comments on the application we're probably ready to proceed to a vote. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or the applicant's representative here?
George, can I take a minute of your time and ask you a question? Yeah. What exactly what part of the regulations is this involved with? What part of the regulation did you go to to see if we could trim brush around the pond?
Basically, it's an upland reviewer, okay? It's a water course, the pond is a water course by definition. And the upland review area, I think this is actually a special area of special concern, it's at least 100 feet and so removal or deposition especially the part that has to do with removal of material from the water course would clearly fall under the regulation so I can't cite chapter and verse and I can probably find it in the regulations. Remember that Unfortunately, the PDF file that our regulations currently exist in is not searchable. Yeah, here I think it falls under section 4.3.
The activity, the recreational activity is a an activity that's permitted as of right but the you know the modification essentially here to treat trimming and so forth is something that would be a regulated activity and again I think it would fall generally under the rubric of deposition or removal of materials. Right. That's under the state regulation.
Well, remember our regulations devolve from the states. You know the town of Andover's regulations are based on the state's regulations. We have to satisfy the state's regulations de minimum.
In the future is that our zoning agent is that Mr. Wagner? Mean our officer I mean.
Yes, Agent Wagner is the wetlands agent for the town of Andover.
Is it possible that you said that it was in the Upland View area correct?
Well, the removal of the trimming that's around the perimeter is the Neoplin Reviewer. Removal of materials from the watercourse itself is not in it that's in the watercourse. So, that's not something agent Wagner could approve. Only in the Upland region. Exactly. Right. I
was just seeing if it's possible like if this happened again that we could make a little bit faster. Was just wondering if A. J. Wagner could do that but he can't because it's not in his purview.
Exactly, it has to go to the commission and I regret the delay but you know we're moving as fast as we can given the fact that you know between the time of the receipt of the application there's a minimum delay that's required by the state in case somebody wants to hold a hearing. Now the Commission ruled that this was not a significant activity and that therefore it would not require hearing prior to our determination. But the fact is again that it's a regulated activity and so we got to sign off on it. Think that we're pretty much ready to do so. We have the motion and again second to approve the application and if there's no further discussion I'll get a roll call vote. Moving across the top of the screen Commissioner Larson. Aye. Commissioner Monroe. Aye. Commissioner Halsey. Aye. And I, Vice Chairman Elliot also vote aye so the motion carries four zero zero. Again, there's a built in delay before you can begin the activity, but, you know, I don't know, I suspect that this will be volunteer activity and it'll probably take a while to round up them anyhow. Besides that, there's no more ice on the pond so skating is not inhibited. So,
can go ahead with the clearing and as soon as you can. We were going to do it from the ice it would have made nobody. Well
yeah that was a pretty short window of opportunity but I guess that now you have to do it from canoes, kayaks, and flotation devices. Right.
Okay, well you wouldn't have been able to pull branches out of the muck during the ice anyhow, so well those obstructions would have been impossible to deal with at that time. Yeah some of those trees we wouldn't have been able to get at anyways. Right okay so moving on with our agenda item number seven enforcement actions agent Wagner could you comment on the current status of the actions at 33 Route 87 has there been any movement literally
unfortunately not since let's see when did I drive by I haven't been by this week I went by last Tuesday and there was nothing done. I spoke with Kurt on Monday, April 5. He told me he was talking to Mark Williams. He was gonna try and get him out there that day. And I went by the day after, and I didn't see anything. So I take it. He didn't get there. And I asked for another update, and I haven't heard back from him yet. So I drove by yesterday. No movements.
Thanks Jed. We note that it's been over a year since our show cause hearing and the order to remediate was issued on 02/24/2020. I need to look at our flow chart. Okay we are at the stage of order not complied with and the next arrow goes to seek court injunction and or funds. I would like the Commission's decision on whether to again defer action or whether it's time to talk to our attorney.
I'd like to weigh in, Halsey. Mr. I Halsey, would like to defer a month. And the reason being, it does sound like a long time. I think there were some extenuating circumstances. I think the applicant did not get a lot of direction. And some of that was on me. And I think he's shown a lot of progress in the last, well, he's shown a lot of progress. And I'm hoping that he will finish it
without going to court. That would certainly be a consummation devoutly to be with. That's my that's all I have. Okay, Mr. Larson?
Well, in hindsight, I wish we would have gone to court a year ago. I agree with, I guess my recommendation is that, our agent get a firm commitment and maybe he's tried and can't. Ask Kurt if he wants us to take him to court or if he wants to get it done. The last excuse was it was frozen into the ground and he couldn't move it. That's a while ago now and it just doesn't appear that he is making an effort. And I think we as a commission and our agent, have both all bent over backwards to allow him to keep that huge shed that he's got out there and only pull it up a given amount, he should be working very hard to make us all happy and I don't detect that. And he either needs to make us happy or we'll just tell him we'll go to court. That's probably what we've done.
Commissioner Monroe, I know you were you weren't here when we got started on this.
Yeah, that was that long ago, I guess. No, I wasn't. I never went to the sidewalk and it does sound like he needs a little bit of a prod somehow. Don't know how besides you send him a letter that's from a lawyer that could do it. I don't know.
Well, think that our agent can convey the sentiment that the next step in this process would be legal action and that you know based on what Commissioner Halsey has stated no more than a month, I mean, we should have some action by our next meeting. That's not quite a month but you get the drift here.
Yeah, we should just let them know that you know if it's not completed by the next meeting, we will take legal action. And then we have to be prepared to take that step. Okay. He will probably do it the day after our next meeting. But we've given him enough rope at this point.
Okay. I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Hallisey that there was some miscommunication and how should I say commission incurred delay in the process. You know, when he first applied to move the shed, we turned down that application then they had to come back and reapply with a new plan so some of that delay is rightly on us so if we have consensus here I guess we can again ask Agent Wagner to convey that legal action will be forthcoming if we don't see progress, substantial progress in completion of the required action to remediate both the improperly placed shed and the illegal deposition, unpermitted deposition of materials. We're good to go with that? Hearing no dissent, I'll say we are. I had a question by the way for Adrian Wagner. Last time we discussed the apparent well there was a problem with, on Hendy Road, 27 Hendy Road, there was a problem with siltation and I believe the record shows that the plan for the site called for a silt fence it wasn't there. Has any action been taken there to your knowledge? Yeah, I
put the notes for that in the agent report, but we could talk about Oh, okay, well then then fine though we'll take it up in our next item on the agenda which is the agent report.
Okay, well I'll start with that one I guess since we're just talking about it. Visited that site on March 23. I I wrote him a letter about the, soap fence. I sent it certified, but apparently I sent it to that house and he doesn't live at that house. So I gave him a copy of the address of the letter when I visited him on the twenty third. So what I did on that visit, I looked to the hillside to the west of the house and the trench that bugged. I received multiple calls from the homeowner Hector explained that the well line was vandalized. The pipe was cut and it was filled with some unidentified chemical and then it needed an emergency repair, which was the reason for his trench. I'm not sure, but I think that would fall under maintenance of existing property because it was a repair of existing pipe. The hillside is pretty previously dug up, it was filled in and it was seeded straws placed over the seed. When I was there on the twenty third, the trench at the top of the hill near the house and the shed was left open for inspection by the building inspector and I'm not sure if it's been covered up by then. Was that one is. I believe it's right at the edge of the upland review area was where the open trenches. Noticed several piles of dirt from the trench excavation near the open section of the trench at the top of the hill. Once again, that's right at the end of the level in review area,
just 200 feet there. I talked to Hector about stabilizing the hillside. We talked about some plantings to stabilize the hillside nearest Hendy Road. He he talked about how he used to have his ghosts there and, they create a lot of erosion. So he moved the fence further away from the road. And we talked about planting some shrubs and other plants over there to to cut down on the erosion. And then he was talking about using Jersey barriers and placing fill behind them on the slope where the goats still are, which is further away. Let's see. Well, that would be that would be to the north of the well pipe. So further away from Hendi Road. I advised him that they definitely need a application for a permit if he was gonna place fill in the Jersey barriers there. So he told me he would contact me if he decided to do that. So that's where we're at for that.
Okay. So no action by the commission required at this point? No.
Okay. Let's see what else I do. I talked to Jim Blair, who is working at 422 Lake Road. I received a few inquiries about the gravel driveway that's on there. So I sent him an email. He told me that when I do that, that was on the March 23. He told me he was going to be there within the next two weeks. So he was there. I was over by there today and I saw his truck over there. He said the lawn supposed to be seated sometime in the third week of April. So what's that next week? And then he's going to remove the gravel road as they're leaving so that all the vehicles and everything will be on the gravel road and then they'll remove it and there'll be nothing left near the water. So you have a pending agent approval, 85 Lakeside Drive, when an applicant is looking to place a 12 by 10 foot pre built shed 26 feet from the lake. So I talked to him about controlling runoff similar to the approved application at 151 Lakeside Drive. And he just emailed me today about about that he contacted Clover Farms, which was the one that is going to do the work on the shed and the same ones that worked on 151. And they recommended not installing gutters because it's only a 120 square foot shed compared to the 400 square foot one that the Commission previously proven 151. They said the it's the same gravel base, which will use was a three quarter inch stone. Yeah. So they said that would be should be enough to dissipate the rainfall. So yeah, that's that's that application. I haven't approved it yet. If anybody would like to offer any comments on it.
I would. Okay. I'll figure you out.
Well, this is the difference between this shed and 151 Lakeside Drive is we have now implemented the lake regulations. And so by virtue of the fact that this shed is greater than 100 square feet, he has to present a nutrient allocation worksheet with a plan to compensate for the runoff and an additional 10%. We expect the runoff water from his property to be 10% cleaner than it is today after he puts the shed there. So he's got more homework to do than the 151 Lakeside Drive. We tried to get them to do something, but we didn't have any enforcement mechanism at that point. And the reason that's important from the wetlands understanding of what's going on is that at a minimum, would be digging a trench to capture the rain in the Upland review area, which we didn't do over at Lakeside Drive. And so he has to go above and beyond just the trench because it's 120 square feet instead of 100 square feet. And so it makes it a little more difficult.
But I would think that we as a commission would want to know what his plan is before that gets approved because it is going to involve digging in the Upland review area someplace.
So that nutrient allocation worksheet, that gets submitted to the planning zoning?
Yes. Okay. And it's a little bit convoluted maybe, but he's sort of got to have that done before he brings his plan to you because you have to be able to make Yeah, that'll be part it. Cut it on whether or not it needs to come to the commission or not. Got it. I'll let him know that.
Yeah, that's an area where I have to coordinate with Joe and meaning that gonna have to really do the zoning upfront along with the wetlands, looking into wetlands, which is just sort of a new paradigm. We'll have to figure that out.
So the lake regulations are a zoning regulation. He's gonna have to make sure that they're satisfied.
Well, they'll change the design. Because like Jed said, they'll have to he'll have to address the. Extra, you know, like impermeable surface that he creates, so that'll change the plan. That'll get submitted to wetlands. So you got to do the nutrient allocation so you figure out what you have to construct or dig and then submit the finalized plan to wetland.
Okay, but that's not in the wetlands regulations. This is in the zoning regulations. I mean, I realize that they're coordinated but again you know not our regulation that we're requiring here.
What would change the plan? I think that the problem is that if I approved it and then yeah and he didn't do it then he wouldn't get it approved by zoning yeah and then he would have to change it and then you have to resubmit it and then I have to approve it again yeah so okay so yeah so as
Krishna Hollis says you guys got to work together to present a coherent front to the applicant. Yeah.
Okay. Now are there any other items for the agent report here?
Yeah I went to 436 Lake Road the one that we recently approved it's a new house construction over there I visited it yesterday, the twelfth and then I visited today, the thirteenth. The builder and the applicant were expressing that they wanted to clear. I didn't count. I think they're probably about six to eight trees that they want to leave and they want to clear the rest from the area between the house and the lake so they could have a view. And the permit application have it. Yeah, that that's.
I have the exact wording. And the erosion control plan that they submitted, the item nine in their application, there was an effort to minimize pollution and proposed home will be located 125 feet from the lake shore and a wooded buffer is to remain between the house and the lake. So when I went to view the site, mean, looked like there was pretty much a clear cut right to the water. So I told him I told him that would probably need a new permit if he wanted to do. That's a substantial
modification. Especially since it specifically says wooded buffer. Right. He sent me as a rebuttal, he sent me the special meeting minutes from December 12 where the sidewalk was. And then on the last sentence of the sidewalk for 436 Lake Road, said minimal clearing intended only as required for construction and to afford a view of Andover Lake. But it doesn't really say too much.
Did they retain the buffer vegetation on the lakeshore? They remember that was specifically something that they stated that they intended to do. Yeah. Okay.
I offer up that you know that is something I think is as we look at all the different projects that we've approved, you know, and we're through zoning now working on one over at 57 Hendy Road where The applicants always tell us that they are going to minimize the cutting of trees And then whenever we go over, or if you go to look at the site after they've cut the trees, in 85 Lakeside Drive is the other classic example, where it essentially got clear cut, There are always significantly more trees cut down than we think when they're coming in to get the permit. And I remember the discussion on the sidewalk. And I was pleased with how small of you they were describing that they were going to cut. Right. And that's why it's important to have it in writing, important to have it on the drawing. So because you always get more than you expect. So the definition of view encompasses a lot.
Well, it should have a limit of clearing on the site plan too. I was just looking at it now. Yeah, likewise and then.
And the limit of clearing is right at the exposed ledge or the silk fences. I'm pretty sure exactly yeah yeah so I mean it is on the map that it's to remain. Yeah. It looks like it's pretty clear. Inform him that he needs to be needs to apply for a permit if he wishes to clear cut his shoreline.
Permit modification. And I would say no uncertain terms that they have exceeded the, you know, it sounds like they've exceeded the limits of clearing that are shown on the site plan. Yeah, well they haven't done anything yet, so. Okay.
They just had them I had them mark them and then I went back today to see what it actually looked like and then I told them to hold off.
Okay, good, good. I'm glad you were able to catch it before. I mean it's really impossible to put a tree once it's cut down. That's everything for the agent report.
Okay, well thank you for those updates and we'll move on to other business. See Mr. Gruner is still on the call so we can get a Conservation Commission update on the vernal pools. I understand that the students have done their deeds.
They have indeed, they have indeed. So I want to extend an invitation to the Commission for April 27 at 07:00. That's the regular meeting of the Conservation Commission Tuesday evening and the students will and the faculty have participated in this will be presenting the results of the vertical pool mapping. As you may recall, this is a joint initiative between the Conservation Commission and the inland wetland Commission that has several phases. The first phase was to map the presence of potential vertical pools based on satellite imagery using GIS software spatial analysis software and two students were working with faculty to do that. The this and they have completed that results and go through how they how they interpreted that. Just a reminder that the second phase will be to now that we would have maps of the vertical where the vertical pulls occur.
Goal is to next spring, Sparrow be able to collect biological data on those pools to be able to add that to the mapping layer.
And in between that will will be focused on recruiting volunteers and reaching out to landowners who have potential vertical pools on their properties for permission for access. So there
will be two other stages before we finish this, which will be next spring, but this is the first step in the process of completing the mapping. So 07:00 on April 27 via Zoom, an invite to the commission to participate in that meeting.
Well, I'll certainly be on the call and I encourage all the other commissioners to join it as well.
And George, I'd like to make sure that may I don't know if I have her personal email, but I would make sure that Megan because I know she's not was able to make the meeting tonight Megan's aware of it because she she was one of the individuals who sort brought in the initial connection with Yukon and brought it to the table
okay I'll make sure to reach out to her as well. Okay next speaking of which I contacted all the Commissioners regarding a letter I received from the town clerk's office. It's time to consider appointment or reappointment of Commissioners for the twenty twenty one to twenty twenty three term. I regret to report that Megan Lolly has informed me that she does not wish to continue to serve on the Commission at this time. She hopes that in a few years things will settle down to the point where she can rejoin the activity, but for the moment she will not seek reappointment. I contacted Ed Smith who's of course not present tonight. I got the impression he might be willing to serve as an alternate
but not as a regular member of the Commission. Thankfully, William Monroe has indicated willingness to step in as a regular Member so we can perhaps fill that breach and I will ask directly Mr. Larson are you going to be willing to continue to serve as a commissioner especially as the liaison with the planning and zoning? If you want me
to be sure. Okay. But the first thing you have to do is be willing. I'm willing. Okay. Commissioner Halsey.
No, I find myself conflicted with the zoning into things. Just doesn't feel comfortable.
I understand your demoral. Okay, I will report that to the town clerk and obviously we are in a situation where we are first of all we don't even have a full complement of regular members oh by the way I am also going to continue on the commission once you step up to the plate it's hard to step away the fact is we are short of members and I will be god awful grateful for any suggestions for recruitment. We will certainly post notification and all that but if anybody has any personal contacts anybody that they think might be willing to step in please let me know I'll do my best to get them on board. Item C, the revision of regulations. I contacted our attorney, Attorney Brantz, about this. First of all, it was mainly in connection with the need to review the regulations with IV regulation before we submit them to DEEP. They said he could turn it around pretty quickly, but advise us to wait until the end of the legislative
session because there are some things going on potential for changes that wouldn't necessarily impact wetlands per se, but other regulations zoning and hearings and the like so that. In other words, let's wait till the dust settles from the current legislative session before we finalize our regulation revisions. So, guess we can kick that can down the road a couple of minutes when the time is right. Okay final item iwwc standard permit conditions I believe that is that your comment to agent wagner
Yeah, I meant to distribute a copy. They're on some of the recent ones that we let's see the one the IWWC20Dash35 and the copy of the standard permit conditions. Basically, just wanted to send them out to the commissioners to review. So when they when we talk about standard permit conditions during the meeting, we're aware of the ones that are gonna get attached to the permit. Okay.
And those are the ones that are because because there was a there was a few older permits that I looked at that had different standard conditions so I just took the ones out of the regulations that we have right now so these are the ones that came straight out of our regulation.
Okay then okay you want to distribute that then so we can if we have comments we can bring them off to the next meeting that seem reasonable okay
I have a question for when I do the minutes and you guys add conditions do you want me to list the conditions? Would it be helpful for me to have that document or are you always going to refer to them as standard conditions?
We will refer to those as standard conditions and especially after we've reviewed them we should have a common understanding. When we add conditions, special conditions, for example, we might add special conditions if we choose to approve the application for the we just talked about for the driveway well and crossing. We would probably have additional conditions. Those would I think have to be spelled out in the minutes. Okay, thank you. Okay,
anything else on the topic of permit conditions while we're at it? If not, okay, I note that our next regular meeting is Monday May 3 and we'll entertain a motion for adjournment. I move adjourn. Okay, well, I'll take Halsey as the motion and Larson as the second just because they came in that way through my headphones and hearing no objections I'll call the meeting adjourned at 09:44PM. Thank you all yeah
that was a little more extended than I expected but that's why we have to have hearings I guess. Just well we'll bring this up to the next meeting about how we're going to handle hearings in the in the near future because it looks like we may be having to hold more of them based on our attorneys advice.