Sandown commission withholds sign-off on Phillips Pond wall repair, requests dimensioned plans and erosion controls

Anthony Cincotta of Alpine Site Development presented a permit-by-notification at the July 9 meeting for a shoreline retaining wall repair at 66 Phillips Pond Drive (Tax Map 6 Lot 11). He said the failing wall is roughly 3 feet high and about 62 feet long; the homeowners' prior permit had expired and the contractor is seeking local signoff needed for the notification.

Cincotta described two construction options: a concrete poured footing and a VersaLock modular-block wall. He told the commission a VersaLock solution would be almost vertical and is likely to avoid extending the in-water footprint, while a poured concrete footing could protrude farther into the pond. A commissioner cautioned that any enlargement of the in-water footprint would change the work from a permit-by-notification into a state dredge-and-fill application.

Members asked detailed, measurable questions: how the cofferdam (an inflatable "Aqua Dam") and dewatering would be staged; where excavators would access the shore and whether timber mats would be used to protect shoreline soils; exact distances from the house to the existing wall; and how crushed-stone footings and drainage would be configured. Cincotta said the typical machinery would be a 6-ton mini excavator operating on timber mats and that the Aqua Dam would allow dewatering into a temporary sediment basin away from the shoreline.

Several members said the current packet lacked the dimensioned cross-sections and measurable reference points they need to ensure the post‑repair footprint will match the original wall. One commissioner noted the existing wall is about 2½ to 3 feet from the house and urged that the applicant supply perpendicular distances so the town can verify the finished wall is not extended farther into the pond. The contractor agreed to provide measurements and VersaLock design details.

After discussion, the commission declined to sign the permit-by-notification at this meeting, citing insufficient detail and the need for measurable dimensions, updated drawings showing the chosen wall system (VersaLock or concrete) and explicit dewatering/erosion-control details. The contractor was asked to return with the requested information; the commission indicated it would be open to signing once it can verify that the repair will not increase the in-water footprint and that adequate sediment controls are in place.

What happens next: Applicant to provide dimensioned plans (existing and proposed wall distances from the house and water), engineered details for the selected wall system, and a dewatering/sediment-control plan; the commission will review and may sign the notification if those materials demonstrate no expansion of the in-water footprint.