Meeting transcript
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission - Special Meeting
May 27, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
No. No. Who eats your dinner? Am I muted now? Alright. We're live.
Sorry about that. My Comcast and leave me in the lurch. And you're you're freezing up, George.
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know if George is attempting to call in by phone now? Or I don't know. I was wondering that too.
Hey, Joe. Would we have a plan b if if George can't get back on? Meaning, could he go to the town hall and log on something?
Probably. I don't know what. I mean, he could use my computer, I suppose. Just just thinking out loud here. Mhmm. I don't see a work clerk on either.
Is Mindy here? No. She's not. She's on the road today, so I'm doing the recording. She'll do the minutes later.
Okay, am I audible? Yes, you are. Yes. Okay, good. So as I was saying, I just switched to a different device, and hopefully this one will be stable for the duration of the meeting. So as I was saying, our order of business is the approval of minutes for May 3. Do I have a motion to approve? Did you call the meeting to order, George? Yes, I did. I was probably in and out of connection when I did so. You and Commissioner Hallisey are the only ones on the commission for the meeting, so that pretty much truncated the roll call and the seating of commissioners.
I'll move to approve the minutes of May 3 as written. And I'll second. Okay. Any corrections or additions to the minutes? I had none.
Okay. Hearing none, then I will call for a vote by roll call. Commissioner Hallisey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. And I, Vice Chairman Elliott, vote aye. So, the motion to approve the minutes carries three-zero-zero. Next item on the agenda, old business IWWC 2036, the 2600 Old Farms Road application. We've received, of course, new information requested by the commission at previous meetings. And I wonder if let's see now. Agent Wagner, could you speak to those changes, and then we'll hear from the applicant or their agent regarding the basic summary of the new information that's been received.
Okay. Yeah, we got two supplemental information packages from engineer Karl Achimovich. And I think it was dated May 25. So there's one that has drainage analysis for the floodplain. There's another one that elaborates a little more on it. And then there's a letter from engineer Brandon Handfield with his recommendations to the commission that also came in. Those are all posted on the website.
Right. Is Agent Hanfield on the call? I can't see all the participants on this. I'd like someone to walk us through the at least a summary of the information that's been received. Hopefully, Brandon's on. Maybe engineer Bushnell could start us off.
Okay. Fine with me. Mr. Bushnell, if you would Yep. Take it away.
So basically, Carl analyzed the the the upstream and downstream conditions for the twenty five and the hundred year storm. Now the subdivision regulations only require us to do For twenty five year, but we went, you know, a couple extra steps and went to one hundred year. It's a twenty five year. I believe it showed no increase in in, water levels upstream. At the hundred year, there was a slight increase of nine tenths of a foot, right in the vicinity of the, of the crossing there. And you know it 100. A hundred year storm. Shows an outlet velocity of 4.8 feet per second, which is pretty pretty low velocity. So you know we believe that you know the upstream impact as far as a flooding condition, nineten of a foot is pretty minimal. You know you're talking one hundred year storm and it's going to happen once every one hundred years theoretically, and it's going to be, you know, contained right to the area near the crossing. It's not going to affect any houses or anything important on the upstream properties. You know, like as I said, the twenty five year, which is required by the subdivision regulations is, you know, no increase in the in the elevation of the water level in the upstream flow. And then we believe, you know, 4.8 feet per second, that's at a hundred year storm. You know, we're gonna put riprap in the in the, you know, at the outlet on the downstream
side of the crossing. Probably getting some larger size riprap and concrete some of that in to make a real sturdy outlet splash pad to slow that velocity to 4.8 down even more and to spread it out wider. You know, upstream there's, you know, I'd call it a gentle slope channel that's, you know, covered with with leaves and stick debris understory cover. You know, Carl and I have been out there when we originally started this job. There was no flow and how we picked up on that there was an intermittent flow was there was some sticks and some leaves move there from a, you know, probably from a larger storm. Larger, you know, velocity flow that moved them just a little bit, and that's how we could pick up where the flow paths were out there. So, you know, we would anticipate something like that in the largest storm would occur. I mean, there's going to be some natural.
You know disturbance of the area anyways in a in a larger storm and what we don't expect anything more than really what's what happens now. You know, on the downstream. Condition, same thing. The slope there really starts to flatten out downstream or where the proposed crossing is, and the flow widens out significantly once it hits the neighbor's yard downstream. So then again, you know, between the the the minimal slope of the channel, the the width of the channel, the wide width of the channel and the outlet protection, you know riprap, the protection pad that we're going to construct there. We don't anticipate any any detrimental, you know, effects downstream either from this this crossing installation. You know, and we are, you know, we are designing it for the one hundred year storm. If we were just doing the twenty five years required, you know, you would see larger, I believe, and Carl can correct me if I'm wrong. You'd see larger velocities through these through this box culvert and through the pipe because you'd have a lot more head pressure on on them in a one hundred year storm. They wouldn't, you know, you wouldn't have the area. The pipe wouldn't be as big. The culvert wouldn't be as big to pass just a 25 storm, so you get more velocity at the outlet.
You know, by overdesign is still one hundred year, we're really going above and beyond to try to mitigate, you know, the potential for downstream effects by decreasing the velocity.
Okay, thank you for that. I'll ask if any of the commissioners have any questions regarding the reports. I see that Engineer Smovic is on the call now, if that's Carl too. Yes, that's right. Okay. Very good. So I'll again turn it over if either the commissioners have any questions.
Yeah. It's Jim Hallency. First of all, I just wanted to to thank, Brandon in absentia for turning this around very quickly. But I do have a question to the chair, if I may, of Andrew Bushnell. Go ahead.
Okay. And I have to assume that, Andrew, that you had an opportunity to to review Brandon's submittal, and I just wanna know that you feel comfortable, Frank, providing the two certifications that are suggested.
Not really. I mean, we can't certify to everything. I mean, there's other factors out there that could cause problems in that channel that, know, somebody could do something upstream to obstruct it or open it up. The tree could fall down upstream and you could get sticks washing down or a big limb that would plug up culvert. Know there. I mean there's things that could happen out there that we have no control over and that we don't situations that we don't create, know. So I mean you can't certify 100% that nothing's going to happen out there and that's kind of where we feel he's pushing us to you know.
Could I just say something here? Go ahead. Just want to reiterate that you know for the twenty five year storm there's no impact at all in terms of any increases along the line because the culverts can handle that easily. For the one hundred year storm, we have to remember statistically, this is a once in one hundred year occurrence, one time. And we're talking about a shallow increase of nine tenths of a foot in one section upstream of where this driveway crossing is going to be located. So it's not a large impact. In terms of impact, what Brandon has suggested here, impact to the side slopes of the gully that's there. It's very smooth along the bottom, has shallow slopes on the side, the approach velocity is very low. And I can say that there's not going to be any substantial impact. And again, we're looking at something occurring once in one hundred years. Under normal conditions, like when Andrew and I went out there, you had a hard time figuring out where the channel was even located because there's so little impact. And then as far as on the downstream side, what happens is when a culvert opens up, as Andrew has indicated, you spread out to a wide section and it gets wider as it goes past House Number 74, the last house, before it gets down into the floodplain area. And it just gets very wide and the impact is low, the velocities are low. And again, you know, with the one hundred year analysis, looking at a really, really rare occurrence, one time, under normal conditions,
you're not going to even see an impact here. Okay,
thank you. So, you know, if I could just add here, the certification is, you know, I can say unequivocally, we're not going to have any major impact. But to anticipate every potential situation, as Andrew has indicated, debris could come down, something could clog things up. People may be doing stuff in the low area upstream of where the driveway is going be located. There's a myriad of things that can happen, especially when you're looking over a span of years or decades. So we foresee every possible situation that could occur here. But under normal conditions and normal maintenance of this area, we are not going to see anything detrimental, particularly for the storms that we've analyzed for. And again, the worst situation you're looking at here is around House Number 68, where I have cross section five shown on the plans. There's a potential nine tenths of an increase in the water surface elevation due to the one hundred year storm, not to the 25, there's none for the 25, which is your requirement.
And even at that, if we look at the next sheet, which indicates the elevation of the house at cross section 5, the house elevation or ground elevation behind the house is approximately three forty two, and the highest water surface elevation for the one hundred year storm is 328.2. So we're looking at an approximate nine foot difference in elevation from the back of the house, the low point of the back of the house to the water surface down in the low area. Okay.
You know, I believe we realize that you can't foresee every possible contingency, and especially VAV what might happen upstream in the future. But, I think we can take your assurance that as a result of the proposed activity per se, there will be no impact or negligible impact on either upstream or downstream conditions. Okay. Commissioner Hallisey, does that satisfy your original inquiry?
I'm compelled to just raise the issue that the definition of one hundred year flood is not consistent with what I understand a hundred year flood to be, but it's it's neither here nor there. I'm I'm comfortable with with the response.
Are we talking about the, you know, one hundred year rainfall event versus?
It's a 1% in any given year. I mean, that's a given definition I understand it, as opposed to You're correct. Yeah. Happening every 100 years. I'm sorry. It's just it's just something that I had I had to read. I'm sorry. Okay.
Okay. Well, thanks for that point of correction. Commissioner Larson, did you have any further questions regarding the application or the, supplemental information?
I did have a couple. And the first one is for you on, would it be appropriate for us to put a condition of approval that the applicants would keep the culvert clear to try and mitigate the debris clogging?
If I might add something there, think I would agree with that. And I think maintenance, because I look a lot of dams throughout the state, and maintenance is extremely important. So to me, that would be a pertinent condition to add to any approval.
And from my perspective, yes, we can certainly add that as a condition of approval. My only question then would be how would we make sure that that is enforced, or that there's follow-up, you know, past our institutional memory, and without over tasking our agent with the need for annual inspection.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we do anything like that. We just make it clear to the applicant that we expect them to keep the debris out of the way so that it allows good flow.
I agree. I mean, realistically, there's drainage swales, etcetera, on many development projects. If they're not maintained, they fail, and that's a given. Everything requires maintenance. We have a lot of long driveways in town, a lot of swales, and a lot lot of of them do fail. But nonetheless, I think it's a great condition.
I mean, think these culverts, the culverts, 36 and the box culvert will be a three by eight or so by the time we fill in. Well, 36 is going to get filled in a little bit too, but they're they're going to be big openings, so you know it's not going clogged by the little common kind of things that would clog a typical driveway culvert or swale. Know it'll take quite larger piece of debris to to plug these so. I think it'll be pretty obvious that it needs to be maintained when you get some kind of debris like that in front of it, plugging it up, you know, or starting to plug it up, you know. But your everyday debris, I think, gonna is gonna wash right through there like it does now.
Well, and that brings me to my next question, I guess, is I'm still confused on the size of the box culvert. And we've been talking about the box culvert being a four by eight foot box. When I look at the drawings, it refers to it as a three by eight foot four sided box. I know last time we talked about it being four foot with a foot of dirt in the bottom limiting it to three. Right,
right. Think, yeah. Yep. But if I look at the detailed drawing that actually shows the culvert, it shows the culvert three feet high with three quarters of a foot of dirt in the bottom. So
Okay, yeah. It is what's on the plan. It's what's on the plan there. We're filling it in.
I understand we're filling it in. But on the plan, we're filling in a three foot opening with three quarters of foot. So it's only two and a quarter foot opening. And I'm just trying to gain an understanding of what it is that we really expect to see when we go out and see the driveway done.
You'll see a two and a quarter foot opening by eight foot wide.
And is that because the outside diameter of the box is four by eight? And no, that doesn't make sense either because jimmy: If I don't know if the opening to a four by eight foot box culvert is four by eight or if that's the outside diameter, the inside might be two by
six. I that's a clear opening. So, it's clear opening inside. Okay.
So anyhow, I think it's important that we have the drawing show what we're really doing with respect to that culvert because I think that culvert is important to making sure that we're passing the flow that we expect to go there.
I think originally we started at four by eight. We realized that that was way too much more than we needed. I got my plans right here. Let me grab.
If could, I can add to that. So we originally talked about a four by eight. But like Andrew said, we realized that it was much, much bigger than what we needed. And a three foot by eight with nine inches of the date of soils placed on the inside was sufficient to to meet all the regulations that we were needing to meet in inflow and all that.
Okay. But to be clear, and even when we went back and we talked at the last, we were talking about the minutes at the last last meeting we corrected them to say it's four foot high by eight foot wide as opposed to eight foot high by four foot wide. So right now is the first we've ever mentioned this being a three by eight culvert as opposed to a four by eight culvert.
I think you're correct about that, Commissioner Larson. And I think what we need here is the assurance that the calculations that we've just addressed regarding upstream and downstream impacts are indeed predicated on the actual size open diocese, a three foot high by eight foot wide culvert with a three quarter foot fill at the base.
Yes, because the documentation submitted doesn't say anything about the size of the culvert.
From what I understand, and maybe Carl can add to this, that the calculations were done at the two foot 10 by eight foot. In other words, what's on the drawings?
Could I just add something in here? The revised report issued to Brandon on April 29 shows the calculation. The calculations were done for a three foot high by eight foot wide concrete box culvert in a 36 inches diameter HDP pipe. And I said note that each culvert will be filled to a nine inch depth inside of space with normal stream materials. And the result of that analysis left us at the one hundred year storm level, 2.3 feet below the top of the driveway. So that was a three foot high by eight foot wide, that's in the report, three foot wide by three foot high concrete box culvert filled to nine inches. The 36 inches pipe filled to nine inches. And the analysis from that gives us a level that is 2.3 feet below the top of the driveway
in the event of the 100 feet. I missed that when I looked through it then. In my final question then is for Eric. The last meeting you kind of briefed us on the overall your project and you had mentioned the fact that the driveway cost was three times what your original estimate for that was going to be. Jimmy: And I was curious as to what was the specific cost to add to upgrade from the 36 inches plate to the box culvert.
George, can you do you remember that? Mean, you kind of priced that out. Yes, so the box culvert just to purchase them is about $10,000 Each section weighs approximately 11,000 pounds. So it's gonna take a very large piece of equipment in order to maneuver them and place them. So with the cost of the structure and the cost of mobilizing a piece of equipment like that, that's where all this additional cost is coming from. I think there's, you know, transportation costs as well, right? The culvert section Yeah. Is gonna be so George, that final number, like somewhere between 15 to $20,000 Yeah, I think it was like somewhere around 17 or $18,000 installed. Okay. That, that takes care of my questions.
Okay. And you've already addressed the questions that I had, so I don't have any further questions either. And I think we're now at a point where we can consider action on this application. Entertain a motion to approve the application with conditions to be specified in discussion. I believe Agent Wagner has drawn up some. I don't know if we have a summary motion at hand. I would like a motion to approve the application so that we can proceed. I'll make a motion to approve the application. Okay. I'll move. I
will second. I would like it to refer to the specific plans, just as a
Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve the application. Now we are open for discussion. That would, of course, include the conditions of approval. Jim, you were saying something about referring to plans. I don't I didn't quite understand that comment.
One condition that comes to mind is we were it was represented that some mitigation we've done in terms of removal of some invasive species and replanting. If we could perhaps include that in reference the document where that was proposed, and I believe it would have been George, the environmental consultant, that is working on behalf of the applicant. George Logan, I believe that was his second report. Thank you.
Okay. And so mitigation being one condition of approval, maintenance being another condition of approval, as previously mentioned. Agent Wagner, I believe that sometime back, we did correspond a bit about conditions of approval. Did you have any further recommendations in that regard?
I think I wrote a draft of the mitigation condition. I sent it to you. I'm trying to find it now. I remember you I think you edited it a little bit. A few changes, but I'm backing off of those. I think we can basically reference
the environmental consultant's report in terms of, you know, what needs to be removed, namely barberry, and what needs to be planted, namely native shrubs, native and adapted shrubs. Yeah. Which were enumerated in the release.
Letter from George Logan to the chairman was let's see. There was there was a February 26, which I think is the one with the mitigation plan. And then January 22 was the first one. So you can make a motion to include mitigation plan as submitted by ecologist George Logan in his report on 02/26/2021. And then the most current plan, I believe, is 03/10/2021, The revision. That would be what was what Jim was asking for.
I do have one comment. Ideally, the Commission has some control over the timing of that mediation. I'm not sure we can in this situation. I mean, as I recall, some of the work would be done possibly this year, and then there was a time period. I don't know. I mean, I don't know as though we can tie it to a CO or I don't I don't think we can personally, but I just I don't if if there's any way we could just give our enforcement agent some teeth here, it'd be great. But if not, I can live with it.
I think that we have, you know, two factors to consider. First of all, vegetation removal, getting the barberry out will depend on-site conditions. Right now would be a really good time to do it, but, you know, they're not on the site and they're not doing the work. But it should be certainly as early the removal should certainly be as early as possible in the construction sequence. And I think our agent should be able to observe that activity when reviewing the construction as it proceeds. The secondary removal, which will occur the following season, and then the subsequent planting of native and adapted vegetation will be, by that reckoning, about three years down the road. So I think it would be an action item for the agent. But again, it's hard to put a real timetable on it. And certainly, in terms of the final approval, I'm not sure that we're in a position to do that.
Okay. I I do appreciate that. I mean, there's a lot of factors here beyond the applicant's control. I mean, there's a lot of steps that have to be mapped out, things like financing and stuff.
Right. For it to be done, it will be done quickly. But again, as you say, there's so much dependent on site conditions. The mitigation is so much dependent on site conditions that it would be hard for us to specify exactly when to do it. Or again, we can, you know, our agent is certainly cognizant and will be cognizant of that. And I think we can expect him to be aware of those activities and look for those activities.
And perhaps for the record, we could include something to the effect that, remediation is you know, by the time a CO is issued for the first dwelling, that remediation would have been commenced and a plan for its completion, something like that, something that I think that the applicant could live with.
I think that's a fair way of way of approaching it. Agent Wagner, do you have any comments from an from an enforcement perspective here?
No. That makes sense to me because, just start it before the final, CO. That's I don't know if it makes sense to me. You can't really dictate when it's gonna end because can't really be specific about that.
Right. But certainly, you'll be out there during the first season of construction. You know, obviously the, I don't know where the construction of that driveway would occur in the sequence of events, but I would expect it would be fairly early on. And again, if you've got equipment down there, that's going to be the time to, a good time to go after invasive removal. Jed, did you have any comments on conditions of approval? Nope.
Okay, so conditions of approval. Of course, standard conditions, but now we're including the mitigation, vegetation removal and replacement, and the maintenance as a condition, are there any further conditions that we should consider as relevant to this application.
Chairman Elliot, enlighten me. Would we be imposing the standard conditions of things like that, you know, the applicant notified the wetlands agent twenty four hours prior to construction, that sort of thing. Right. The the silt fence shall stay in place until well, I mean, that that kind of information may be part of the ENS plan. I'm not positive. But nonetheless, don't know if there's anything else just that we can give give our agent to work with. Maybe it's all there. I don't know. It's been a while.
Yeah, it has. I also think that for the record, we should make the finding that the application satisfies the criteria and that there is no reasonable and prudent alternative to this activity. Good point.
Okay. We don't have, I don't see Mindy on the call here. Mindy's not here.
Mindy's gone. He's gone. Okay. Yeah, you must have been. Okay, we've got a, well, the meeting is being recorded. I'm just concerned that we have, you know, an accurate record of the conditions. I'm not in a position here to draft a detailed motion on the fly, but I want to make sure that we're clear on the, again, the grounds for the motion to approve the application, and that you know, that the supplemental conditions are clear, I think that they will be, how shall I say, they'll be reflected in the minutes of this meeting, which we will consider at our next regular meeting. And I hope that that will be adequate as far as commissioners and applicants are concerned so that we can again proceed to act on the application.
K. Can I go back to to brand Brandon's letter? Can we can we at least get certifications that may not be worded? It could be worded just to the effect that, you know, to the best of the well, could could they be worded to satisfy both engineer or at least something that that Andrew is comfortable with and provides some level of certification?
Well, we do have a record in, at this meeting, a statement. Do you want something in writing to back up the assertion that's already made
to the effect. I can't tell you exactly what it would say, but it would be I mean, obviously, Andrew made it clear that he he can't he can't comply to to Brandon's request to the full extent, but perhaps we could have something something in the record. Alright. It's not a deal breaker for me. I it was just a thought.
This is agent Wagner here. I just feel like the signature on the report with the professional engineer stamp kinda counts Okay. Counts towards a mistake in the professional reputation on On the conclusions that he makes in the report, so. What else you really need?
Should we summarize the motion? Is that what you're looking for, Chairman Elliott?
Yeah, I want to make sure that we have a clear sense of the motion. Since I don't have anything drafted in writing, we are, first of all, finding that the activity is permissible and there's no reasonable, prudent alternative to the proposed activity, to the construction of this crossing, that we will include as, in addition to the standard conditions of approval, such as notification and so forth, that applicants undertake removal of barberry specifically, and that they plant native and adapted shrubs as delineated in the environmental consultant's report, and that they undertake to maintain the span to avoid blockage and, you know, backup in the event of a flood or of a 1% rainfall event. I believe that that was all the conditions that we were going to require to issue a permit.
For clarity, I just I'd like the the approval to to reference the the plan that was submitted, the a title, a date, and a revision revised through. Just so for clarity, I realized this plan is not necessarily filed in the land records, but nonetheless,
it's somewhere on record. It's in our archives. You know? Right. The town's archives. And that that was the again, h one, I believe that was the March 10 plan. Or Yeah, it's a last revision was March 10.
That will also be on the permit too. That's part of the standard conditions that the permit references
to plan last provision March So it's probably not required. Right? Probably not necessarily. I understand wetlands nuances of wetlands. Always alluded to. Thank you.
Okay. Is there any further discussion regarding the motion? Seeing none, then I'm going to ask for a vote. Commissioner Halsey? Aye. Commissioner Larson? Aye. And I, Vice Chairman Elliott, also vote aye. The motion carries three-zero-zero. We approve the permit with, of course, conditions as described. There'll be the two week waiting period, and Agent Wagner can take it from here. Okay, glad to have that off the agenda now. We can move on to agenda item number seven, enforcement actions. First of all, we have a show cause hearing regarding the activities of the gravel pit on 497 Route 6. Major Wagner, could you bring us up to date on that?
Yeah. I I issued a cease and desist and an order to remediate yesterday, May 26 for violation of the permit at the 497 Route 6 gravel pit. There were some placement of stump conditions on the cease and desist letter is placement of stumps, tree limbs, and other woody debris within the 200 foot upland review area of the Hop River and within the 100 foot upland review area of wetlands and vernal pools. Stumps, tree limbs, and other woody debris have been placed in an area to the northeast of a line indicated on the site plan revisions six three twenty nineteen as the limit of grading, no grading beyond this point.
So basically no grading or removal or placement of fill, which includes stumps, tree limbs and other debris was to have occurred in that area. And obviously I took some pictures, I emailed them to you because I didn't have an assistant to post them on the website. So you should have gotten those. You can see clear pictures of the stumps. They're in the process of removing them, which is good. And I think engineer Chris Bell is on the call, and he can give us an update of what's going on over there and answer any questions you guys have. Okay.
Can everybody hear me? Yep. Okay. My name is Chris Bell. I'm a professional engineer from Higinham representing the applicant. I've been after the applicant for the last month to get rid of these stumps, and we finally got started Friday, last Friday. As of today, we visited the site at 10:00. Mr. Wagner, Mr. Hallisey, and Hank Bruner, the pathologist. And at the time we got out there, they had two more loads to get rid of. One load left around 11:30. And there was one more load to actually less than a load to be loaded on after I left about 12:00. The operator of the the excavator loading the stumps and debris. I asked him to give me a call if he had any problems finishing that today. He hadn't called me.
I'm assuming they had no problem removing the last load. It takes about an hour round trip to come back to bring the truck back. I'm assuming they didn't have any problem with that. What was left, if I could show the Chairman permission to share a plan.
Go right ahead. That work? Uh-oh. No. I'm not the host for this meeting. Okay. There we go. You got it? Yep. Okay. Good.
This is the original site plan that was approved. Site plan s one. What I have shown in revision blocks are the changes planned for the restoration plan as of this date. This was submitted last week, I believe. Where we are right now, this was the area where the stumps debris was as of last week. They were actually located along here last month. These were at least pulled back away from the wetland flags and the vernal pool last week, so it would be away from the buffer area. These stumps were all removed last week. This was the remainder spot right here that the rest of the stumps are,
I said, less than a load right here as of noon today. What's left right in this area between Station 5 Plus 35 and 565 right here is remainder of the soil that's left from the stumps because they were sitting there for a little while and they got dried out when the stumps are lifted up, all the topsoil just falls off of them. There is about a three or four, maybe up to five foot layer of a pile of top saw right here that will be taken care of. If not, wasn't taken care of today, it will be taken care of should be tomorrow. And in this area is going to be the first area that's going to get restored as far as grading goes. All this material that's here right now from the stumps is going to get taken out. And since it's all topsoil, it's going to get put over here getting ready to get spread for the restoration area. So as far as I know, all the stumps have been taken out and removed off the site. They were trucked off the site as of today.
I believe that that was done. I can't say 100% it was, but all indications were that most likely did get finished. I will check on that 09:00 tomorrow morning to make sure that got done. The other thing that had to get done today, talked with Hank Brunner. This area right here of silt fence is the stakes are broken and they're going to be putting in a new fence in back of this and stabilizing that. They should have done that this afternoon. I will check to see if it's on tomorrow morning to make sure that's done. Uh-uh mister Gruner said it's imperative that we get that done as soon as possible because this is the egg laying season now for the box turtles and we want to make sure they do not penetrate any of these areas of silt fence. All the silt fence along here has been inspected
and it's been maintained throughout the project. We look after every rainstorm to make sure that it's intact. We'll be monitoring it on Tuesday when we come back and make sure everything is okay through here. We did start the grading over in this area this afternoon with the bulldozer to start developing the slope to bring the slope down in the first restoration area here. This entire area here is going to be restored. Half this pile is already gone since last week. It was stopped during right after the cease and desist was issued by planning and zoning. And now we've established with the town engineer that was out there also for the meeting today that we're going to be restoring from here all the way back to the end. It's going to be totally restored. All the gravel that's along here along the silt fence will be removed up to Station 4 I'm sorry, up to Station 380, which is right here. And this entire area will be restored all the way back to here. That way, the only section that's actually open is going to be right along this border where they'll start again if the Planning and Zoning Commission grants us the extension. We'll be taking this pile out and then starting removal here. And we will be make sure we stay on top of them to restore this section as we go. Once this gets completed,
we'll be restoring that section. The last thing we should probably note when this is restored, and we're going to put a silt fence along the top soil that's there, because this naturally flows in this direction. We'll be installing a small sediment pond here so that it collects the drainage water before it overflows into the sideline area over here. We will have a swale reconstructed here to go towards the sediment base, and it it got filled in over time over the last year, and really isn't there anymore. So that's gonna be reestablished. But that's the update on the plan right now. And, it is hope that, by the end of next week, this will be entirely graded. And by, Tuesday, this should be Tuesday, Wednesday, this area should be graded for Mr. Runner to come back
and just note that there's sufficient amount of sand area for the turtle laying area. He no longer wants to have moguls. He thinks that this area is a flat area, would be better served to be for the egg laying area. So that's what we're going to give him. He'll take a look at that as soon as that's done. And we hopefully by the end of next week, we'll be ready to topsoil and see the entire restoration area. All this topsoil that's located up here will come down and get spread across here, and most of the topsoil here is going to get spread in the restoration area. This topsoil has not been removed, so that will be used for its own restoration. And that's really about the update as of today. Any questions from the commissioners?
Chairman Elliott, I am interested in understanding the what are the actions going forward for the Wetlands Commission with regard to this application extension. Once the plan that's just been described sounds good, the current application expires the end of June, I think. And when planning and zoning meets on this on the eighteenth, do we need to have something from the Wetlands Agency to allow us to act on that application at that time?
That's a good question. I'm sorry that I can't answer it off the top of my head. I will have to refer to regulations and see if we need to take any action on what what we have on the agenda tonight. So agent Wagner?
Yeah. I just this is agent Wagner. I looked at the I tried to go back and look at the the motion for the original issuance of the permit, and they said I forget who did it, but it was a motion to approve it with standard conditions, and then there were some other conditions. But the standard condition on the permit and the regulations is five years. And that was before those previous wetlands agent didn't write permits, so there's really nothing to research. So I'd say if you go by standard permit conditions being five years, they still got a few more years. Being said, if the applicant is restoring the area that's in the upland review area, it really shouldn't fall under the purview of the Wetlands Commission unless they choose to. They have the opportunity to review any application that might have an effect on an upland review area, even if it's out or or on a wetland, even if it's outside of the 100 foot or the 200 foot, depending on where it is.
But yeah. So it may not even it may be a a moot point for the wetlands commission if once the restoration is completed.
I mean, I think it's a matter of course that zoning agent would probably ask the the wellizage if if the cease and desist if the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the deficiencies. Mhmm. It's just sort of operating per standard operating procedure.
And so is that is that a question that the commission answers or the agent answers? Because we don't have another wetlands meeting scheduled before we have the next planning and zoning meeting, which I said was the eighteenth, but it's actually the twenty first.
I believe the agent can make the determination whether or not the the cease and desist could be lifted. Like, act acting as the enforcement officer. So if they the responsibility to either issue or conclude that that it's that it's been resolved. So I should be able to take care of that before before the next wetlands commission meeting. It sounds like it should be completed as long as everything goes to plan. Okay, thanks.
I certainly be satisfied with that outcome as well. Okay, so bottom line with this one, action was taken and the alpinins are the engineer and the construction company are actively responding. And our agent will lift the order as soon as the response is completed. Okay, I guess we can move on then to the next enforcement action, the long standing activity at 33 Route 87. Thank you, John. Thank you, Chris. Okay. Thanks for being on the call, Chris. Good night.
Agent Wagner, you had, again, provide some photographs and updates on activities at Number 33 Route 87. Could you walk us through that?
Yeah. Forget where I think the driveway was cut as of the last meeting. Right. So the shed got moved. I believe it was 10 feet according to the plan. So 10 feet away from the from the stream. And then the contractor, Mark Williams, came in and removed some material behind the shed, removed some of the extra piles that were over there, and then used some large stone to, he basically laid it on the the slope behind the shed. As you can see in the pictures, he pressed it in with the with the excavator bucket so that, it wouldn't fall into the stream. I emphasize when I talked to him to maintain this, you know, not try to remove material from the stream beds since it was already established and there was no blockage. There was no you know, it's all vegetated, so we didn't wanna go down there. So it's basically the the area leading up into the, you know, maybe six feet up from the stream bed in certain spots. Yeah. So I went and took a look at it today.
Mark Williams, the contractor, completed everything. I think all of these is some grass seed in certain areas. A lot of it's rock, but it looks looks pretty satisfactory. The angle is much better than it was when the commission visited the site, and you could see the real steep angles that's that's been resolved. So then I also visited with the owner of 41 Route 87 earlier today too. And because she voiced some concerns with the activity over there, I think she was thinking that the owner of 31 Or 33 Route 87 was doing work without a permit. So I explained to her the the permit and and the extent of work and assured her that they were done over there, and they weren't doing anything further. And now she seemed satisfied with that. So so I think we're we're in a good place with this one. I'm Good. I'm happy with the work that was done over there. Good. I'm glad to hear that it's finally approaching resolution.
I don't remember the details of the engineering design, and I don't know if they fulfilled all those criteria in the application or, for example, using geotextile.
That I did talk to Mark about, and we kinda came to the conclusion that that wouldn't work in the application because of the rocks. I was thinking that the weight of the rocks would tear the geotextile, and he agreed that if you put the, you know, you put the fabric down so you'd have to remove all the rocks, put the fabric down, put the rocks back down, and then press them into place, you'd probably tear the material Okay. Accomplish anything. I mean, if it was being seeded and topsoil is being placed on it, then you'd kinda need it to stabilize the area. But being that that the steeper grades are all rock and filled, so It was really kinda unnecessary.
Okay. There we go. Any other questions, comments from the commissioners? I just see it wrapped up.
Good to have it getting done. Okay, then we can move on, I guess, to agenda item number eight, agent report. We've got three or four items there. You want to walk us through it briefly?
Okay. I got the first one is the 85 Lakeside Drive. I don't have any updates on that one. It's still working its way through zoning. So I'll let you know when that gets issued. I issued a permit for agent approval of the town of Andover's application to install a 12 by four foot wooden stairway at it's in the Upland Review area, the Hop River. It's actually behind the the ball fields. There's a walking trail over there. Guess you guys are probably much more familiar with it than I am. But I went out and visited the site with Scott Person and explained to me as a 12 by four 12 feet long, four feet wide. It's gonna be set in between two rocks and kinda work its way down. It's already kinda like, there's no excavating
or anything. They're gonna set the post as far as they can, dig the holes without running into rocks. So I thought that was a pretty straightforward application. And then the next one, I had a report of some activity at 159 Lakeside Drive. I didn't see a wetlands permit on file. There were two building permits that were issued, for a propane tank and a generator installation. They were filled out in October 2020. So I spoke with the owner May 17, and he was a little he was not aware that he needed a wetlands permit. He had talked to the the previous building admin person, I think. I'm not sure. I didn't remember seeing the building permits because I usually review them when they come in here to see if they do need a permit. So basically, what he was doing over there was they placed a propane tank, they placed a generator, and then they needed to dig a trench to bury the gas lines and the electric lines out to the pole, hook it up, and then the gas line to connect the generator and the propane tank. And I believe that's been completed now. And then there's another one for a pending approval of replacement of a septic system at 84 Route 6, which is Scott Electrocraft. So they're they're putting a septic system within a 100 Upland review area of unnamed tributary of the Hop River. Is Evan Harvinson on the call?
I am.
Okay. Yeah. He's the the applicant, so he could explain the project to you guys if you want. You can go ahead, Evan.
The existing system for Scott Electrocrash is underneath their parking lot. Every year in the spring, their system backs up, so it's being affected by groundwater. When it was originally installed, it's, like, 40 something years old. So this year, they reached out to us. It's the first year we've actually serviced them specifically, asked us to look into the issue. That's what we kinda came up with was that the existing system is being affected by groundwater. They had previously done soil testing on the property. I believe it was o eight in anticipation to put a addition on their building. So the testing was done. They found 100% code compliant area. Plans were approved at that time in 2008 for the building addition based on the soil testing that was done for the 100% co opine area. That co opine area just so happens to be within the 100 foot of an active stream, but it's only a portion of the septic. The overall length of the system is about 140 feet long. There's one thirty foot leg that's gonna be within that 100 foot range. It'll actually be at sixty sixty feet
from the edge of the creek. The rest of it is outside of the 100 foot range. Joe and I met on-site and kind of walking through that exact thing. He took some pictures. My opinion, the creek is easily protectable with just silt fence during construction. And then after construction, due to the slope on the hill, we're probably going to end up putting down hay matting, something like that to stabilize the slope, at least temporarily until vegetation and things can grow in there before we would pull the sill fence. That's kind of the quick, rough explanation. I can take whatever questions you guys got. Anything from the Commissioners?
Yeah, I have a question of of the applicant, if I may, to the commit to the chair. Sure. I'm just trying to understand the plan towards the top of the page near the screen. What am I looking at? There's there's a silk fence identified, and then there's this 40 foot strip. Can you tell me what Joe that
wanted to know the distance from creek to silk fence. So that is that measure. So there's 40 feet of separation between the edge of the creek and the silt fence that we're going to put in.
That's the strip that you're seeing. And what would the 60 feet be?
That is the distance from the edge of the creek to the actual edge of the septic system. So where it says 32 feet of double wide. That is the edge of the system. So the measurement from edge of creek to edge of system is 60 feet.
Okay. Just just a sort of general question. I mean, this is obviously very close to the stream. I have to I can't picture the lot. I mean, I I mean, I drive by it all the time and it I mean, it must have been placed here, you know, closed here because this is where it fits. Right? I mean, there weren't a lot of options. Correct?
Yeah. So there's it's twofold one because this is where it fits into because everywhere else they tested was unsuitable, which means there's less than 18 inches of naturally occurring suitable soils. So I I can't shift it, you know, further away from the creek Okay. Because you get into unsuitable soils, and then I can't go in their parking lot as is the existing system because of the groundwater. It'd be in the groundwater. Okay. Thank you. So this is elevated up on a slope, up on a if you went by there now, there's a bunch of trees up on that slope. So Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
I did not have a question on this one, but I did have a question on the previous one when you get We'll to
get back to that. Let's make sure we, again, this is simply a report. I don't think any action is required on our part. And no need to keep the applicant on the call any longer necessary. So, if we're done with discussion on that, we can again return to the question you had regarding the other item on the report.
Is for Adrian on the 159 Lakeside Drive. As I walked by there, I see it looks like there's pallets of maybe building stone or something like that in the vicinity where that trench was. And you said you looked through the different building permits. Did you know, was there any evidence like he's building a patio or anything like that with that stuff? Or did you get a feel for what that was all about?
No, all I was told was that there was propane tank and the generator installed. I haven't seen any permits or anything for for patios or or anything like that. I
recall saying a zoning permit for the the the generator or the or the tank. What what did you say? Was it both? Propane
tank and a generator. There are two separate permits for one for each.
Okay. I do remember signing off on that. I can't speak. I have no idea how it moved forward without the wetland sign off. And that's the standard procedure is the wetlands agent signs off, whether it be, you know, after a permit is issued or, you know, the administrative approval is given.
Yeah. I looked through the guy the applicant's folder. I mean, it has a record of applying for permits for everything that he does there, so I don't think it was an intentional thing. I think it was just overlooked.
Yeah. He he came before the commission last year for a septic system. Right. I worked with him on that.
Okay. I have one more comment. And as I was looking through Scott Persson's application, and he had the entering boilerplate couple of pages before you get to the actual application thing. And it talked about Andover Lake activities. In a couple of meetings ago, we were having a discussion about should the commission act on applications within 200 feet of the lake? And at that time I said to you I was happy with the way things were going. But when I was reading through Scott Persson's application that actually had this cover page on there, it specifies under Andover Lake activities that the Commission regulates all activities within 200 feet of Andover Lake, including any activity within the lake itself. So I guess based on that,
maybe that was the basis of Megan's comment that the Commission should be involved in any application within 200 feet of the lake. And I guess I agree with it.
I disagree somewhat with that interpretation. My understanding was it was simply a matter not necessarily that we should have to act on every application, but rather that a higher level of scrutiny might be warranted simply because of, again, the density of population in the lake and the particular sensitivity. However, I think we can still rely on agent approval for upland review, and especially since we're getting better communication about those actions, that I don't think we need to put our foot in any further on you know, Lake Upland review applications. Obviously, when we get down to the things that are on the lake margin, things like retaining walls, yeah, we should be out there taking a look at those. But I don't see that we need to do that for, no, for activities like propane tank and generator. Now, that said, I would certainly like to see an application for that activity. I don't think that it's proper to let that kind of activity slide, even if it was simply inadvertent and other permits were issued for the activity. It's awkward to be approving an application after the work is done, but I think it's even more awkward to let an activity slide without
requiring an application.
So in the case of Mr. Carbonos coming before the commission to put in a septic tank, septic system last year, we would now view that as something that agent Wagner could approve?
I think so, since, especially since septic systems are subject to, you know, health district regulations and all that. And I think that, again, the Commission has been on record of heartily approving septic system upgrades in the Andover Lake area because of the history of, you know, under engineered and failing septic systems, impacting the lake quality.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure my expectations were clear. I
do want to remind the Commission too that they have the ability to appeal anything, any decisions that I make. If I do something that you don't agree with, you could definitely bring it up and then review it through the commission. Right. But that's why I try to give keep you updated so that hopefully you can decide if you wanna take it on before before I approve it. So
And I think you're doing a good job on that too. So I think it I think it is working.
The other other thing, Jed, was sometimes when I post the applications, I most of the ones I put on there, I think I take the two and overlay the cover pages off of the form, you know, just to limit what's on the web because they're preprinted. There's no information on them. So I just wanna make sure it's it's not the applicant that's omitting that stuff. It's it's usually me. I can include it if you if you'd like. But
Nope. That's fine. Okay. I just actually took the time to read through it today. Yeah,
I would like to see more update on, for example, the Long Hill Road logging and stump removal application. I believe you approved that. And, you know, there were questions raised about that application at the last meeting. And, you know, I appreciate, you know, returning to when you end up approving an application, that we've considered if you would give us a debriefing on that as well, and, you know, especially where there were issues like property lines and so forth that that were of concern to the commissioners. So if you'd be sure to include those in your agent report, I would certainly appreciate it.
Yeah. Did with Long Hill Road when I didn't get an updated map showing the correct property line that went down to the stream. So the guy did did cut his own trees down. Good.
Good. And as for removing the stumps, last time I drove by there, I didn't see anything further. I it didn't sound like talking to him that he was gonna do it right away. So Okay. Well So is
it your intent to have him submit an application when he does the stump removal? Or The
application, the one that he had was it did include stump removal in it. Okay. He had talked about putting a shed there in the future. I told him he would need a different application for that. So but I think the the one I approved was stumps and trees. The whole tree, I guess. Okay.
Good. Okay. Well, let's see now. I guess we can move on to the agenda. Other business? I don't think we have any. I have a You do have?
Question. Just on the it's my understanding there were some applicants for slots.
Oh, that's the next item on the agenda, appointment of new Oh, okay. Didn't I didn't have the agenda in front of me. Right. I understand. I'm sorry. There it is.
Joe, you've had some correspondence with a couple of people that were interested or expressed interest in the commission. I believe one was actually on the call earlier, but if you could give us an update on that.
Yeah. I actually I was glad she was here because I meant to send her and Tim the agenda. I did it for the last one that got canceled, but then I slipped my mind this time because it came up so quick. Yeah. But I was hoping to have Tim here too. Michelle was kind of wavering about it. She was wondering if her experience was was adequate. But I told her, you know, the difference in experience is is good, I was hoping she could be here to to talk about what she could bring to the commission in front of you guys. But I guess she's not here. So maybe the next meeting, I'll I'll send her a keep her in the loop.
Yeah. Why don't you send out invitations for the next meeting? We'll put her earlier on the agenda. Yeah, yeah, hopefully.
Maybe it'll be a light agenda. We'll be able to talk to them, because obviously, I mean, here we have a quorum of three. Mr. Hallison is not going to continue the commission, so we're down to three regular members with one alternate, and we really need to flush out the board a little bit. So, invite them in. I guess I now have their contact information because you've copied me on your correspondence, so I should contact them as well to invite them to apply for membership. We can take it from there. And of course, we can always hope that continued publicity will drum up further interest. That said, I don't think there's anything more we can do right now. So, we'll move on to our next item, which is our next regular meeting, which will be on 07/13/2021. Of course, meeting because of the Independence Day holiday. I look forward to seeing at least Mr. Larson and perhaps some of our other commissioners as well. Again, I'll take this opportunity to express appreciation to Jim Halsey for serving on the Commission, and I'm sorry that your responsibilities and voting agent put you in a conflicted situation. I certainly understand that. It was my pleasure to serve. Good.
So, with that, we can, I think, move to our final item on the agenda, which would be a move motion to adjourn? I'll move to adjourn. I'll second. All in favor?
Aye. Aye. Okay. So, the meeting is adjourned at 08:34PM. Again, thanks to all in attendance, and see you on the thirteenth. With that, we can all push the little red button that says leave the meeting. Good night. Enjoy the rest of it. Good night. Good night. Good night, everybody. Live long and prosper.