Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission- Regular Meeting
December 19, 2022 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Thank you.
Okay, that's got Thank you. You got it. Okay, so it's 07:02, and I'll call the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. For roll call and seating of alternates, I see Anne Cremay, Scott Persson, Steve Nelson, Leanne Hutchinson, and myself. I also see Susan England, an alternate in attendance, and she will not be seated tonight. Next item up on the agenda is additions or changes to the agenda. And I do have a couple I am going to change the order around just a little bit to support some people that I see present. I am going to move Item 6A, new business, up right after public speak. And then I see our school superintendent present. So, after that, we will Have the update on zoning amendments old business five e. Then after that. Old business five a restoration of the gravel pit. And after that. New business six be the budget. I will delete the old business items on update Rosewood Acres updates on accessory apartments and update on plan of conservation and development. Also, renumber items starting with approval of minutes. That should be item seven, correspondence eight, admin reports nine, public speak ten, and eleven and twelve next week in adjournment. So those are the changes to the agenda. Any other changes for that? And Attorney Brands, welcome. Thank you. You got the message? I did. I
I tend to check emails all the time. It's a good thing. Yeah. Well,
it was funny. I thought after I wrote back to you in the meetings tonight, you were using the Jewish sunset of starting the new day when you said the meeting you would see me tomorrow. And so, I am glad we got that So, screened out welcome. Any other changes to the agenda?
Okay, I am I'll make a motion that the changes
to the agenda that I discussed be approved. I'll second that. Okay. I'm going to call for a vote just because I don't see Leanne here. I'll go Anne. Aye. Scott. Aye. Steve. Aye. Leanne. Aye.
And I vote aye as well, so the motion to change the agenda passes five zero zero. With that, we'll go down to the new business item, the eight twenty four referral for development of a senior community center adjacent to 17th School Road Downhole. And, next. And Eric, I can't find your letter here in my little file. I've got about 500 things open, but yours somehow disappeared on me today. Is it possible, Eric, you can share your screen and pop that letter up? Sure. Give me a couple seconds, and I'll track it down. While Eric's calling that up, I made so many changes to the agenda, I jumped over public speak. And so, I guess at this point, I'll go back and I don't think there's anybody from the public who wants to speak at this time, but this is your opportunity. Okay, hearing none, that closes out public speak. Now we're on to the new business for the 08/24 referral. Okay,
I think you should see it on your screen now. We do. And if you can blow it up just a little bit. That's pretty good. Yeah. So, all the Commission members should have had the opportunity to review Eric's letter. And I thought he did a good job of explaining how the most recent plan of conservation and development didn't directly address a new senior center. The long term planning committee that put out a report in 2018, well, the report came out in 2019, discussed it at length. And so, you know, I'm looking to hear what the Commission thinks
as to does our plan of conservation support putting a community senior center in the general vicinity of between the school and the town hall? Or was anybody able to find something in there that might preclude putting the community center between the school and the town hall? Anybody got any thoughts? I didn't find anything. Okay.
I didn't see anything about the location, but I've got other concerns about I mean, I didn't see anything about the location of it in the plan of conservation and development. I have some other concerns about the location. I don't know if you want me to bring those up now or not. We'll wait till we get to the zoning part, maybe.
Well, so I guess I would like to stick with, you know, what might be in the plan of conservation and development to preclude us putting it in. We know that the general location is, you know, somewhere between the school and the town hall. We are not looking at the exact location there. That will be a discussion for another day. I was going to start this discussion tonight saying, you know, we are really talking about can we build a community center in the Andover Rural Design District, but we do all know basically where it's being looked at, and so we ought to view it with that in mind. So, I'll pass on Anne for
a moment. Leigh Ann, did you have any thoughts on that? Leigh Yep. Leigh No, nothing in particular. Okay. And Steve? No,
I'm not aware of anything that would preclude it, and I, you know, read Eric's note here, and I think it's very logical and it kind of puts the whole story together.
Yeah, so, you know, when I read through the plan of conservation and development, you know, we've got a whole section in there. I think it's section 12 about the increasing older population and how we need to serve them. Certainly back when the planet conservation came out, I surprised it didn't talk about needing a new one. But at the same time, you know, we had a senior center and so not necessarily required that it talk about that. If the town hall, you know, something happened to that tomorrow, we'd be talking about putting up a new one, even though it's not addressed in the plan of conservation and development.
I did see something interesting here. In the very last page of the plan of conservation development, it looked like this. It has for each chapter some points that we should be looking at. And under Chapter 12, the third point was plan for a new senior center, which allows for social interaction and avoids isolation. Okay. So it does have it there with the very last page when I looked, at least on the computer, it was the very, very last page of the whole plan. And where is that on that page, Anne? There's
sections for each chapter, and in the middle, the chapter 12, And then I think it might the numbering might be based on priority. But the third one down does say plan for a new senior center. And it's like the very last page of the whole thing and it looks sort of like that. I'll try to show hold it up to show
what it looks like. Oh, okay. So that's that full worksheet. Okay. Well, yeah, my eyes aren't focusing on the copy I've got well enough to do it, but I had to print it out and enlarge it in order to read it. Okay, yep, I see it in there. It's yeah, Section 12, Item three, Plan for New okay, nope, that's great.
So, the idea of building it is definitely in there to have a new Okay, that's good. It doesn't talk about the location.
That's all. A couple of the points that I took away when I was reading through that. On Chapter 10, page four, where it discusses the Andover Town Center. It discusses connecting the current town center with the Andover Elementary School town hall fire department complex, stating this combination would have the most uses one expects in a true South Town Center. And so the plan of conservation does hint at putting the two sections together for the town center concept. And then in chapter 10 on page 13 it says, at the same time carefully designed and clustered 55 and older housing would complement the adjacent governmental buildings and create a village atmosphere which would be very desirable. And so I thought when you're talking about putting senior housing near the Town Hall Municipal Complex, putting a senior center in the middle of those two things would seem very supportive of the thing. So again, I tried to find a stumbling block going through there, didn't see any. And I thought it did make sense and was consistent with our plan of conservation and development.
And so, you know, I guess with the points I just listed there and Anne's point, any other discussion or questions of Eric on his letter before I make a motion to vote on it? Okay, hearing none, I'll make a motion that placing the seniorcommunity center in the relative location between the town hall and the school is consistent with the 2015 plan of conservation and development in the 2019 long term study plan for the town of Andover. I'll second that. Thank you, Scott. Any other discussion on the item?
I would personally, I don't think I would vote until after the some other things are covered, like to do with location and the zoning. I just wouldn't be able to vote on it yet. Okay. Mr. Chairman.
Yep, go ahead. For the record, Newmarie Brantz, since location isn't designated, one of the things the Commission could do is simply find that the concept of, of a new senior center is in harmony with the, with the goals and objectives of the plan of conservation development with the site to be evaluated when it's designated. Typically these referrals do include the site. It's unusual for them not to, but that's, you know, it's one step at a time so that's one way you can address that that disconnect is just by recommending it as a as an improvement, a facility that is in line with the plan.
Well, I was, I thought we were trying to keep it at the conceptual level. And again, we've got, you know, surveys of the town people that suggest that that's where the majority of the, 70 some percent of the people that responded to our survey in 2018 thought that's where it should go. Now, I do understand, we're still doing some survey work to find out exactly where the property lines to make sure we can get there. Aren't we voting on the 08/24?
We are. Yes, we are voting on the eight twenty four. That that it's
And that is a concept at this point, which not a specific location. Right. Concept the exact location is not known exactly, but
But we have a general idea. We have a very close within a foot, I would say, of where it's gonna be. So I would say that's pretty close. I don't know why that has this is just a referral to the Board of Selectmen that it's it's consistent with the plan of conservation development.
I understand, maybe I misunderstood, I thought that the location wasn't designated. It's designated, Mark. It's Then sure, I'm sorry. Misunderstood that. My apologies. There
could always be a surprise as we figure out exactly where the lot lines are and that sort of thing. And I am under the impression that we have not come through that completely yet and we haven't seen an application for it yet. We are just trying to get the eight twenty four out of the way that in that general location, we think that it's consistent to put community senior center. And I think that's what the motion that I made had said. Ann, if you feel that you're unable to vote for that at this point, we're going to take up, I know, some concerns you had about the change to the regulations here. One of the next items up, you have to vote the way you have to vote at this particular time. Any other discussion on the motion that's on the table? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. And Anne? Abstain. Okay.
Scott? Aye. Steve? Aye. Leigh Ann? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes four-zero-one with Ankara May abstaining. Okay. Next up, well, I guess next up we said we were going to do the update on zoning amendments to Section five and Section 24 of the Andover zoning regulations. So at this point in Carol Ann, if you can allow me to try and share my screen again, and we'll see if I've got that in the. Okay, so I see it. Yep. Good.
So, Anne, I know you expressed that you had some concerns and would ask to have this on the agenda tonight. And so, go ahead. Okay.
I would like the commission and the public to know that I completely support this construction of the senior and community center. I believe it's been a long time in coming, and the community center taken in isolation is compliant with the Andover Plan of Conservation and Development. But in planning for this, we can't ignore the intended location of the center and the subsequent change to our zoning regulations. As a resident and a member of this commission, I believe we have the responsibility to make sure it's completed in such a way as to protect the school's interests and responsibilities while also allowing the construction of a community center. I have concerns about changing the zoning regulations to delete schools from the list of special permit uses in the ARRD zone and substituting municipal land uses. I would much prefer to keep the listing for schools and add a municipal land uses to that special permit list. So we'd have both. I have three reasons for my beliefs on this. One is that the Connecticut General Statute number ten-two 20 requires that the Board of Education shall have charge of the schools of its respective school district shall make a continuing study of the need for school facilities and of long term school building programs, and shall have the care and maintenance and operation of buildings, lands, apparatus, and other properties used for school purposes,
unquote. That requires that school properties kept separate from other town owned property. And that's one reason why I think we should have a separate zoning use. Another concern, number two, the removal of the, quote, school identifier and lumping it in with municipal is that while school is a municipal building, it does not mean public access as would be expected in other municipal buildings and is what's intended in the proposed definition. Today, there's a great need for safety and security of the school buildings and property. As we've seen in the past few years, during the conversations about a senior center possibly using some school classrooms, the parents in Andover were very concerned about keeping their children safe in school and wanting it separate. The third thing, the proposed
addition to Section 24 lists municipal land uses, buildings, structures, and the uses of the town of Andover or any regional public agency of which it's a member, but not including public uses by other agencies or entities compared to public, unquote. As the Connecticut General Statute requires the Board of Ed to have charge of the buildings and lands, I think there's a definite requirement for a separate identifier to be in the special permit uses. So that's why I feel we need to keep a school identifier, not just have it all lumped in with municipal. Okay. A question, what was that statute again? Ten-two 20. Thank you.
So, one, we're not going to act on this tonight. The next meeting, we will have public hearing and further discussion. I wanted to get your concerns on the agenda tonight, Anne, so that we have a chance to think about them over the next month. And having attorney Brantz on the call tonight worked out as a bonus because now I don't have to, well, I will still ask you, Anne, at this point to send me whatever document you were just reading through we can have that for our record and I can send it to Attorney Branch so he can take a look at it. My first thought is that it's probably okay to have it all lumped in municipal land uses because whether it's a school or a community center or a town hall or a firehouse or anything, it's going to get reviewed as a special permit consideration. And so we would, you know, obviously have to comply with that Connecticut statute, which I haven't looked at yet because I just, you know, am hearing about that. But at the same note, I don't see any downside with having schools
out either. I don't think it's required, but if that, you know, I don't know of any downside there, and so I will certainly consider it. I do trust when you say, Jerry said in his letter from the Board of Education, you know, both of you are interested in seeing the community senior center built. You know, I think that's been a town of that's been an item of friction, you know, in the town for a long time. And so, I want us to take a good look because what I would like to have is we've looked at it hard and the Board of Education can go on record as saying that, you know, they support and agree with whatever conclusion we come up with there. And I want to handle it, you know, I remember oh so well that meeting that we had when we were looking to put the senior center in a wing of the school. And not looking, you know, I would like to avoid that if at all possible. I think working together, I think we can do that. Don't know. We'll cross that bridge when we get there. But I understand your desire to have schools broken out from municipal land uses, and we'll discuss that more at the next meeting on that. Any other Commission members
have any other, you know, comments or questions for Anne while we're talking through this item here? Ed, have a quick question. Yep, go ahead, Leigh Ann. Ann,
you said something about a distinction about buildings that don't allow the public in. Is that part of your main point about the location or are you making a distinction about just just mentioning that some public buildings, some buildings may not be open to the public, or is that kind of central to what you're saying about the location or not?
It's mostly, my concerns are mostly about zoning wording to have, instead of under special permit uses as what's on our screen right now. I had been listed as schools, and it's been proposed to cross off schools and make municipal land uses. I'm saying we should have a separate one for schools, because a school is different in the access, especially today in the last ten years or so how you can't just walk into a school anymore. It's under security and parents and teachers and students, you know, are to be protected there. And that's why I wanna keep a separate
permit item there. For the record, Mark Brantz, I understand that Commissioner, but that's an operational aspect and administrative aspect, I mean the Board of Ed would have control of schools as as they do now. They're all special permit uses, I mean it might be it might be a town garage might be senior Center might be school, it might be all sorts of things. But they're all going to have to be individually applied for and evaluated. So how does having the separate definition help or that? Well,
I guess it just seems slightly different than all the other municipal uses. I hate this, you know, for years it had just said schools instead of municipal, I'd like to just add the municipal as a separate one instead of taking schools out. The
only problem I can think of, and I tried to check the reg just now, but I'll check more carefully. Some zoning regulations prohibit more than one principal use on a lot. It, that would mean that a school and any other municipal facility could not share the same lot. But I don't, I didn't find that in a quick review in Andover, but I'll search for that. That's the only, if so, we can simply say that except for municipal uses and schools, that's that we can fix that if it's there, but I'll find it.
And I do know there are other municipal buildings that are not open to the public. Like, I think courthouses in that, you know, the public just doesn't go wandering into a courthouse anymore. Right. And so there's probably other places to So anyhow I
do have a question now thinking through this and looking at some of the other items that we have listed like golf courses, hospitals, convalescent homes, child care centers. What if there were to be a proposal to put in a private school or some sort of religious school that, you know, like a Catholic elementary school, would that be excluded from this? As I drafted this, it's municipal
land uses is only of the town of Andover or regional agencies of which it's a partner. Okay.
So, have other categories. I think we have other categories for private Well,
and I am looking as we go here and I don't see anything. You know, we took out private recreation areas and put, you know, the public parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields in. I don't see, and I was expecting to see something on a private school. And it's interesting because when I look at our parking regs, because we've looked at that with respect to this thing, we've got a requirement for how many parking spaces there should be for a private school, but we don't address a public school. And so, guess we can think about do we want to put private schools or something in here as we go through, too. We probably won't be perfect until we get done with this. The goal of this is, in a timely manner, make it so that we can put a senior center, community center in the Andover rural design. For instance, you'll notice that nothing in there right now says we can put any municipal buildings in here other than schools. And so, you know, somehow we came through and put up a firehouse in the town hall. So we're going to make it better. Sometimes the driving force behind the change to the regulations is somebody wants to do something and it comes to the Commission with whether or not we think that's a reasonable thing to do. So again, you know, we'll give it some consideration. You know, Dirty Branch, I appreciate your looking to see if there is any downside. I don't know that there's a lot of upside, but if that's would it, if that eases some of the angst with the Board of Education, you know, I would be happy to go that way for just that goodwill.
But we'll see, you know, we're not voting tonight, we'll vote after we hold the public hearing and see what the other input is on that thing. Okay. Think that's, Anne, did you have anything else that you wanted to share on that particular issue? No,
I think that's probably it. Thank you very much for listening.
Okay, thank you for, you know, I want to know what the concerns are so that we can address them so that we all feel good about making a community senior center.
We'll still be getting a request for a permit, a building permit, or whatever before that goes through, right?
Absolutely, and we won't get a permit until we change the regulation, if we choose to change it, because if a permit is put in, you know, they pretty much are putting the permit in for the regulations in effect at that particular time. And so we're going to wait until after we've acted on the request to change it and then go forward from there.
Yeah. One thing that's having that quite related, in the plan of conservation and development in Chapter 10, I saw a plan from there, and it shows the conceptual plan of the town hall area, and it shows wetlands. And it looks like right where they're talking to putting the community center, it looks like it's wetlands, unless not enough detail for me to pick it out. And I just wanted to make sure we are okay on that. But you probably do that with the Wetlands Commission.
I think we will. I've got faith that the people that have put it in their proposed spot at this point didn't put it in the wetlands area. I think there is enough room. It does make it a little tougher to get out behind there for a potential housing development. But we do, we'll take the wetlands into consideration through the Wetlands Commission before we act on that here too. Okay. Okay, so I am going to wrap up on that issue. I think that got us to the next item up was the discussion of the gravel pit. Jim, why don't you lead off the discussion on the gravel pit at this point based on your letter to Mr. Genovese following our last meeting on what we thought was going to happen and where we are today and where you think he's trying to hit. I understand Chris Bell has got medical issues, wasn't able to join us tonight and. So tell us what you know, Jim. Sure,
I believe it was at a meeting four weeks ago that the Commission had directed me to send out a letter of. A letter to them and which was provided in Mark Branson provided pretty much the body of that letter. And it asked for various things. Work being completed by the end of November, which obviously has not. Just that I'd be notified forty hours prior to final grading and that they shoot grades. For one reason or another, it hasn't happened. I mean, there's been weather issues. There's been I mean, all along there's been issues with with contractor and you know the owner just not. It's not has been a priority for the owner. I think fair to say. Which I realize is not the Commission's problem and and Chris Bell, the engineer was injured, seriously injured just before the meeting last the last meeting. I believe now he has. A. Infection and he was unable to log on. He just couldn't do it.
So here we are. And then also there was I had been out there a number of times and I thought they were getting close. And then. They very recently, I think it was late last week that they opened up another section of the. The hill in the back, which I think we all thought was was was done deal. I had said it could use some of the material. It wasn't gonna leave site. I thought it was further from the wetlands than it actually was. It didn't occur to me. It actually Chris Bell thought they were they were working to the left of the location where they ultimately took it out of. So here we are. We you know it's still incomplete.
I am told that they could complete it this week. I'm not gonna I'm not saying they will. I mean I was Chris Bell on the phone this evening told me that. And he also told me what the the plan to fix the what's there is to to excavate material to the left of where it was opened up, meaning closer to the auto parts parking area. Bring it over the grade so you have an angle to repose that that will prevent that will maintain stability on that hill. And then they were gonna actually hit and seat it this fall, but use some sort of material. Believe that it will winter. That's what I was told. And we also are looking for an as built upon completion. Some grades. I mean, there's been a lot of discussion over where this water is going to drain. And we have a plan that has been approved, and we've been working towards that. And ultimately. That's the direction they've been there. They've been heading seems that there's been some confusion with with what grades were they were working towards. So I have. Happy to answer any questions.
Well,
So here is the drawing that was the restoration plan dated August 15 that was provided to us. And I think it's up in this area here that we've taken the big excavation. Yes. And hopefully,
can bring up a picture of that in a minute. Now, so we've got the Hop River, and then this line here is 200 feet away from the Hop River. Now, we've also got wetlands line delineation going through here. And so this is the line that's the upland review area from the wetlands. And so if he is not excavating in that area, he is awful darn close. Now, I think from what I saw, this pile of topsoil is still there. Yes.
Not sure, but, you know, when we were briefed on the restoration plan, we were told that all of this area here, all the way down to the sill fence, was not going to be disturbed. And so we have obviously Right. Not
complied with that. And so my concern is that we are continuing to not work collaboratively. We've got excavators doing what they want to do that doesn't seem to be based at all on the plan that Chris Bell provided to us and we agreed with. And so that's why I asked attorney branch to join us here tonight. Again, this talks about the proposed low point through all this. And it comes up. So this, the best I can tell with this two ninety five x five, that's two ninety five and a half feet. Over here, I see two ninety six feet, which is higher than that.
And over here, I find 295.8 feet, which is lower than the two ninety six so that you get it to grade, you know, drain down here and back towards the river. That's what I thought. And when I went to, you know, I stopped at the Extramart a week ago last Sunday, and I saw a depression in the plateau here, And I thought we were essentially done. I thought it looked pretty good. And then there's all this work going on this week and that caused, you know, big concerns there. So I'm going to stop sharing this and see if I can find so this shows the big chunk that's taken out back there into the best that I could, and I think this is the, that pile of topsoil that is supposed to spread
around. But it just looks to me like this is at a minimum in the upland review area. I could be wrong, you know, and I know agent Wagner went out to take a look at that today. But what concerns me more are these stakes that are out there. And this one says 295.5, and it's got a line here with an arrow drawn to it. And what I want to make sure, Jim, is that that doesn't mean we expect to grade up to that line because all of these stakes have marks on them. And that's a significant yield. That would take a tremendous amount of dirt to fill it up to that level, if that's what that means. And if they're planning on taking that all from that hill in the back, you know, that is not satisfactory. And I say it's not satisfactory. We said we weren't going to go in there because of a wetlands consideration. So I don't want, you know, it's a violation. This is yours to do. They're choosing not to come back with a new plan that we asked them for. I am very weary at this point because nothing is gone according to plan on this since the start. And I just don't know
with these elevation things. I only use Yeah, it says it says finished grade FG elevation 29 and a half. Right there. Finished grade. That's where the grade is supposed to be. It's gonna be up to this line. Yep. That's a
foot and a half or two foot more high. And right now, the plateau is higher than the Extramart, so I don't know why it has to go up that high. You know, I wasn't expecting that. Was expecting, you know, when I looked at it a week ago, I thought they were all done and I was happy. Now they're doing something different. And so, I like the approved plan. I don't think they're headed that way. And I don't like them taking it all out of that hill in the back that is certainly very close to the Upland review area. And if it's not there, I think we need to have it
lined off so that we're not digging at it. And I don't understand what the plan would be to rectify this gaping wound that we have, you know, in that hill that was nicely seated and restored early in the year as part of the restoration plan. The back slope there, Jed, wants to be left untouched.
If you take material off that front slope, the back slope is not protected any longer.
Yeah, well I'm not smart enough to say that one way or another.
All I can say Chris said is they were gonna, he was aware of that and He was figuring out basically to fill it in in order to get that angle, the angle that he needs to to stabilize the rear part of that hill.
Nope. Nobody should nobody should be. There should be no more work down there until everybody understands what the other guy is doing.
So, you know, I think at this point, they didn't do what they said they were going to do by the end of November. They didn't come to us with a plan. And they are not working collaboratively with you, Jim, so that you can hold the town's interest, you know, make sure that the town's interest is uphill. You know, this isn't the plan and we need to figure out with these elevation markings that they got down there, you know, what is it that they think they are doing? And so, I am not in a position, I don't think, to give direction to the zoning enforcement officer, But to allow them to continue going, I think is disastrous.
I mean, is there a way that we can move forward to get this done and the Commission be comfortable.
The way that they would have done that, Jim, is they could have showed up at this meeting tonight and explained what they were going to do.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to No,
and No, so I think we need to, this point, based on the lack of wanting to work together with the town, we have no choice but to continue the legal proceedings. You know, I didn't want to go that way. But who's here telling us what what it is that they're thinking? Okay, as as we sit here, I believe
Genevieve is the owner is planning on Having work. Moving forward tomorrow, Joe had asked they stop that they stopped today and then came to a decision that that they were outside the regulated area. As long as they don't. Move any further. I'd have to basically, I mean, tell them, if you want me to do that, I can. And we have attorney grants here to give us little direction on on the mechanics of that. But whatever you want done, I got it. I'll do it.
Well, I would think at a minimum, Jim, you would want to know what those how where are they planning to get the fill to move that whole plateau up that high? Okay. And why can't we get a plan that they're gonna follow? That's all I wanna know. I mean, all workers should be coming up with a plan and they don't follow it.
Well, I'm confused because, I mean, we're working off the 08/15 or 08/16 plan, the plan that's the most recently approved plan. And it appeared that they were close to reaching that. And now I'm looking at this great state that's telling me something different. So I'm kind of at a loss. Okay.
Chad, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that that aisle in the back was out of limits of anybody to touch. You know, and I talked to other people about that and they were in agreement with me that pile was to be left exactly, that's why they put those blocks back there, the cement blocks back there, to keep people out of that area. That was supposed to be left alone. Am I wrong with that? I thought that this whole pile was to be left exactly the way it was that's why they seeded it.
That's what Chris Bell had repeatedly told us when we're talking when we talked to that restoration plan.
Right exactly now. And is that what the plan shows? That was Mark Branch for the record. The plan show it undisturbed and you don't know no change in existing grade because if so that's sort of the end of the story. It says on the print, there's an undisturbed area. And it includes this hill of this mound.
So, and again, one of the things that that confused me, and I was never able to get Chris Bell to act on it is I was hoping that there would be a final drawing without all these contours in here to clutter it up with just
showing a grading that you're talking about is at five six, five. It's considerably behind where they are now. Say that again, Jim. The limit of grading that's on the approved plan is at five plus six, five. Limit of yeah, up here. Limit of So grading
what I'm saying is that's No grading beyond those points. That's behind where they have excavated.
And that was my point of confusion. I think that was on there from the original because we've got this Zone 5 that they were going to work on to go up there. I don't know. And all I can tell you is that every time Chris Bell talked to us about this plan, he said they weren't going to do anything with this area back here. And so.
I don't think, I mean, weren't planning to. And then they. Okay, well,
when they weren't planning to and they briefed us that that's the plan, I think this is an artifact from the original zones, you know, five, four, three, two, one that they were supposed to be working and they never, you know, they never did it in accordance with that plan either.
I'm understanding is is they they stopped short. Just in an effort to be done. They were going to take all the material that was initially approved. So they still, they have their initial approval allowed them to go that far back. Just, I don't see where they
Can you blow that up There's a number up here aligned to the vernal pools. Yeah. And then it goes to that limit of grading. There a number on that? Because you can see the vernal pools clearly out back there.
I don't see a number. Oh no, I do see a number. It's 95 feet. And that 95 feet corresponds with with what was approved. If you look at Joe's email, his memo, which was sent out. I was wondering wondering why 95, but that just happens to be what was approved by by the Wetlands Commission apparently, and which was on the original plan. To what I'm saying, Scott. It's very hard to read. Actually, they have a site that limits of grading and limits of clearing. The clearing way back. Well, make sure I understand what they're you're getting at there. Mean, limit the If
Chris Bell is worried about the big cut that they made in that hillside, I guess we're we're we're both in agreement with that because he probably wasn't supposed to be cutting into there I would say. People worried about it and I'm saying that Jed's saying it, everybody that looks at it saying that it's odd, I guess something's up with it And he probably shouldn't be taking any more material out of there until we figure out where we are, where like Jed said, where's the Upland Review here? What and it doesn't resemble this print doesn't resemble anything that's out there right now. Probably shouldn't be taking any more material out of there because nobody knows where we are.
I guess the question I have, Jim, is from when I look at this plateau that they've got across there and it's still crowned now, not depressed like it was a week ago. We've got these numbers on here. Why does it have to be, you know, if we're going to change the plan, why don't we lower these numbers? Because this plateau is significantly higher than the ground level over at the gas station? So, you know, it's well clear of any flooding, would think. But they need the Planning and Zoning Commission concurrence on any changes to this plan. And they're just running off doing,
I don't know what they're doing. Right now they've they've cut into the they've cut into the flood zone also. Right? They're cutting below the flood level in that area. Yeah. Don't believe so. Flood zone If
it's if the flood zone is two ninety four, Jim, and he's and he's a foot and a half lower on the stake. Goddamn. Yeah.
I don't think those stakes are right. I I got no No. They can't be. So there's something going on. Something something is not right here, And we are continuing to, you know, there's no group that's and it was always going to be Jim, Chris, Bell and workers. I had thought they were going to go out there and and make sure we were doing something in compliance with the grid here. If that is not the group, I want know who the group is. We don't have a plan as of right now. It expired at the end of September.
I have a thought. It something we should bring the town engineer in? Is my understanding we do have one. Yep, we do. Mean, would the Commission be comfortable deferring to the town engineer as far as reviewing the approved plan versus what they're proposing to do? I would be Honestly, I'm trying to get this site state wise. That's my concern. And I mean, commission meets once a month.
They don't meet for five weeks. Can we just send them a cease and desist until we can get the Oh,
we did. Okay. Well, no, they're out there working. They were out there working today.
Well, the order was to to bring it into compliance with the plan. So the question is, is that what they're doing? And, I mean, far as referring to the town engineer, I guess the question is whether, I mean, if we're going to refer this for legal for legal action, I'm going to need somebody to tell me, and it could be Jim it could be the ten years or somebody tell me, I only for me it's pass fail. Are they in compliance with their approved plan or not. If the answer is no. You know, doesn't matter to me by where, where, where it doesn't matter for the courts, where they're out of compliance or how ready but if they are, then then that's a violation period the end. So I suppose if we need the town engineer, guess what I'm trying to avoid is having the town of Andover go out there and shoot grades and things like that, that is the the applicant's responsibility. If we incur that cost after suit suit is brought, we can recover it. If we do it before suit is brought we cannot. So, I guess, the preferred thing, obviously would be for the applicants to tell us what in the world they are doing out there and show us a plan or something. Yeah, realize it. And I know Mr. Bell is is ill now, so I I I don't want to, you know, be unfair with him. But, but maybe maybe the only the only role I see for the town of G. R. Right now is is to get a a professional opinion as to whether they're in compliance with the the approved plan whatever that plan is. The answer is no.
Then these guys have some explaining to do. By the way, the commission does not need to and should not vote to send this to legal action, because that becomes an appealable decision all by itself. So it's the CEO's call with guidance from the commission obviously. But I guess to me that the question is whether I guess the question really is for Jim whether you think that I mean it's the by by the weekend the ground's going to be frozen. Mean it's to hit single numbers you know in the next few days. So even sand will probably freeze. So the question is going to be, does Jim think that he can work this out with them and get them to tell us what they're doing,
and what the stakes mean what all this means. If there if response is no if they're stonewalling him or if they're just whatever, then then we file suit and and then we send the engineer out.
Okay yeah I was I wasn't suggesting the engineer shoot grades he just wanted to bring in a professional.
I mean, if he can, if he can tell us, you know, no, no, this is not in compliance with the plan. But I think we kind of know that. And I I I understand is that they're not even denying that they're they say they're trying to fix it. Their contractors mucking around. Just don't know what's going on. And that's frustrating because this has been on the agenda a number of times already. By now somebody should know what in the world is going on.
My suspicion is we asked Mr. Genovese what those stakes mean. He doesn't know.
No, I mean, I can deal directly with the contractor. Is the contractor the guy that shot the elevations?
I'm not sure who shot them. Yeah, I think it was an independent surveyor.
It would seem he either incorrectly shot the grades or the plan set the elevations too high to begin with Because like you said, Jed, he's, you can't possibly bring in enough, he's going have to bring in a ton of exterior fill to get up to those elevations.
Yeah, now, you know, over here, you know, it says the elevation, it's some benchmark, I don't know if it's in the ground or not, 295.35.
Yeah, says top of pin, but if you look over, the actual elevation I think is two hundred ninety two point eight eight at that pin. Okay. I think it's just a reference pin. So we could go check that pin kind of eyeball it and see if it makes sense relative to what his grades are.
Jim, I would ask you to consider, you know, these stakes and the unknowns with it, where they're going to get the fill. These elevations, when you do your own assessment of, is this grade right now higher or lower than the gas station, and how much higher does it need to be over there? You you've got to convince yourself all that stuff. And if you can do that, more power do you. But I think you get the sense from the commission that there's a lot of frustration unknown, we have worked way too hard on this to be stuck where we are now. But certainly, when we were here a month ago, Chris Bell said they could be done in three days. We said you can have to the end of the month. And here we are December 19, and we're maybe not even close. I know it doesn't crown. It's still got a crown, and I was looking for the depression in there to retain the water. So what do you think you need to do, Jim? And maybe that's an unfair question, but.
So I I think I need to go out there and and take a look at the stakes. Talk to the contractor, get a better sense of what's going on. I mean, I generally when I stop there, mean, usually. I'm never speaking to the contractor very or very infrequently. It's been the gentleman on the on the loader. But I believe the contractor, I think Bill has the contractor.
The guy that's been on the dozer and the loader is the contractor.
And I'll I'll want his name and and address somehow.
Where where are these sections off of it? It's from this line down by the highway. I mean, I'd like to know where this all lays out. Where is that section five, you know, six, where are those sections? And do they have something that they is it it's just on a is it a cartoon that doesn't mean anything? Was just drawn? Where, you know, where are these the
phases that were discussed at the original approval, which I wasn't here for, but nonetheless.
Yeah, with sections to working sections where they were supposed start work, right, but that's going to give us an indication of where the upland review area is and if they're into that protected area or not, Jim. That's something else we got to figure out. Well, where's that coming from? There's not any footages on that or anything. It's just a line on a piece of paper.
It is just a line on a piece of paper, but it goes back. And the original plan was they were gonna excavate one zone. Exactly. Then they would move to the next one and remediate that zone.
That never happened either. But I'll It never say happened either. Yep, that's it. We got to figure out where we are, where it is. You know, I'm trying to, I was looking from the other side coming in from the Vernal Pool area to see if we could take it out that way. It says 95, I guess I can see that now. I mean that'd give you a starting point, you can get pretty close. Somebody's gonna have to go out there Jim and measure these things out and see if they're in the Upland Review area or can they dig in that area? Say area sloped and grassed. It says right there sloped and grassed, grassed area sloped area sloped and grassed. So down to here at five plus zero, it was sloped and grassed. So where is that?
Well, I think that sloped area is the side of the hill.
Yeah, is, it is. And that's supposed to be left untouched.
Yeah, here's the gradients. These are the gradients that are supposed to be at the end of the day. Yeah. Yeah. And it's it's dug out. It's
Yeah, it's gonna have to be immediate. I mean, what he's proposed again, what he's proposing to do is use material to the left, over towards the left. It's well away from any vernal pools.
I thought the material to the left was the loam that's supposed to be spread behind that. Okay, so it's just behind that area.
I am interested in seeing a restoration plan, which is what it's going to look like at the end of the day. And if they need to talk to us about readjusting some of these elevations, you know, as long as it has the concept of this peak is a little bit lower than this peak over here. So, if the basin overflows, it comes down here and back to the river. That's good. You know, it can be a little bit lower or whatever. I don't think they need to raise it another foot and a half, two feet to get to that point. Now, I'm missing the point of the stake. I don't know. But they have continued to be very fuzzy with the facts here and we don't have a plan. And we asked them for one, and here we are, no plan, nobody's showing up to talk about it, and they just want to go ahead and do what they want to do. So, Sergeant, can you go back to Halsey? I am sorry, go ahead.
Well, you know how the Commission feels. You have to Alright. I think, you know, I don't understand why your parents said you're talking to a plan.
That stake that you had there, Jed, would you agree that it was over a foot to the grade that it is and a foot of material? I know it's more than that. I think it's more than that, yeah. And I don't know how high those stakes are.
Thought they were like two and a half feet, so I'm thinking that it could be anywhere, you know, a foot and a half to two feet that they're talking about going up to that mark. Okay, so so right now
they are in the flood zone at two ninety four. If those if those
those If that's what if that's what we're showing here, that they're that and they're trying to make this so that they can build on it again. But at 294, that's unbuildable. Yeah. It's 294.
I don't think it's right. Right. But, you know, that that stuff looks higher to me than the gas station. It's unbuildable if that's how they have to leave it you can't build there.
It says there's a benchmark stake there at 294 right between the gas station and their property. So if you can find that benchmark stake, it might help. Right at the 3.00 mark. Or be no. Between 3.0 and 2.0.
Oh, I see it. Yes. The label's way over there. Yeah. Okay. 2 94. Yep.
I what happened was those guys just started digging and nobody was there to check on them. They they cut that grade too far down, and now they're trying to figure out where they're gonna get all that material. That's an awful lot of material because they changed the plan and they made that higher so it goes towards auto parts. Made that great great higher in there then dug it down too deep.
Yeah, I didn't see Steve the benchmark that you were talking about. I see this one here which is and I remember seeing that out there February.
Now they got a February and a February right there. Now that's kind of agreed in a close area that's going to be dropping down in. So,
I guess at next month's meeting, Jim, if you're the expert on this thing and can answer all the questions, that is great. But I would, I think they shouldn't proceed until we have an agreed upon plan on what the end state is going look like.
That is what they were supposed to have done and they didn't do it. And I and I agree with you, Jed, that nobody nobody even knows where they're digging right now. Yep. Who put those stakes in there in the ground? Do you know?
I don't know. Could have been the extrovert man for all I know. I'm
not saying that they're wrong or right. I'm just saying. I got you. I I just in there. We need to understand.
And what did he use to locate those stakes and the elevation? How did he locate that? Can't even see a number off the highway or from a place there where he would locate those stakes to pick an elevation.
Okay Jim, so what do you want for way ahead?
I think that Jim should continue what he's doing now, try to get answers to these questions, find out what they're doing, if they know what they're doing. If he but but if if he gets a run around for you know nothing's going to happen now because it's it's we're we're entering the worst of winter but I think if he keeps getting the run around like he apparently has been we just bring suit. We're just gonna bring an action and and and then things will shake out. You know, mean, that's all there is to it. The once and and that's why I mean I and I actually intend, I mean, I would name the contractor. I would name the guy sitting on the dozer whether that's the contractor or not, I don't care. We'll name Genovese, we'll name the contractor,
we can name Bell because somebody's got and you get enough defendants in there and somebody starts talking, but that's what we're gonna have to do. I mean, I, if they, if they wanna step up, mean, we've certain, this has been on for a number of months, but I think if Jim feels that that that they're responding to him or they're going to respond to him, then then fine. But I I I really think that the gym's gym's got to get some answers pretty fast. I mean, I mean, in there, you know, by the first of the year. And if he can't get any kind of responses as to what's going on here, then then we just then like I said, as long as some can tell me that it's not in compliance with the approved plan, then we bring suit and we find out by how much it's not in compliance with the approved plan.
It is disturbing that they're that they're now excavating an area that was not to be disturbed. Apparently because they dug too far down although we don't know that but if they're if they're entering an area that's to be not disturbed then then they've they've got to respond immediately or we have to bring sooner that's all there's to it that's they're they're now expanding. They're expanding the problem now. Right. So if if if Jim does not get satisfactory answers, you know, within, you know, like I said, by the first of the year, we just bring soup. Okay.
And like I said, we'll sue them all. I'm not I'm not gonna well, wasn't my fault it was the engineer. It wasn't the engineer. Was the con it wasn't the contrary. I don't care. We'll sue them all. That's my thought. Ted? Yes, Leanne.
I have a couple of questions and comments. I really appreciate the remarks that Attorney Branch just finished making because, as we've said, we've been going over and over and over this for months, and nothing changes, literally, and we were told this last month that a plan was gonna be provided according to the minutes, if they're correct, And even if they didn't provide a new plan, as has been said several times tonight, they're supposed to comply with the plan from August. I wish we had, just for our own information, according to the minutes last month, the letter that was sent to Mr. Genovese was going to be attached to the land records and posted on the website, if I read it correctly, and I don't see it there. But Mr. Bell, it's unfortunate that he apparently has medical issues to the extent that he does, but even before apparently they were that serious, he would just, you know, it's physically impossible for him to be there every day, but it wasn't even close, and he would just act perplexed every month and say that it was a surprise to him as well, that more had not been done, or what was done wasn't done at the time frame it was supposed to be done. So, I mean, this is just getting repetitious. And I agree that we need a deadline. Otherwise, you know, as attorney Brent has said, we were looking they're talking about the ground freezing over now, and I just foresee this going on if we don't do what he just finished suggesting as far as taking further action.
He might. And the reason I said that by the way is, is, you know, courts don't move quickly. So my goal is going to be to have something hammered out by spring. And that's really going to mean and bringing an action in January, it's going to be at least a month before it's even returnable to court. So now you're February and so, you know, we really can't, unless unless Jim gets very concrete responses. They've left us very little choice.
And to go back to Mr. Bell, a couple of points for a minute. One is that you would think, I would think anyway, that from Mr. Genevieve's point of view, if Mr. Bell is unable to attend to these things in a timely manner, I don't know what his timeframe is for Mr. Bell's health, that there must be somebody else who can be brought in and brought up to speed. Otherwise, we're just going to keep having this. Again, it's very repetitious. In the letter from November 23 to Jim Halsey from Chris Bell, he mentions a surveyor going out next week. This was dated November 23. We have a surveyor going out next week to provide grade stakes in addition to the ones I provided some weeks ago. So, maybe it would be helpful to Jed and to the Commission in general to have the name of the surveyor, as well as narrowing down the name of the contractor and the people who've actually been using the equipment. I guess that's most of my remarks.
Yeah, I think the surveyor could have come in tonight and helped us understand. Yes.
Okay, Jim. So, you know, my guidance would, don't let these guys tear into the hill anymore until they can convince you that they got a good plan and now they're going to restore the hill and how far they're going build it up, all those questions. But to let them continue on their own, I think at this point from a week ago, I think we've made the situation worse. It's not a question of nothing being done. Now we're actively making it worse, and that's my concern. Okay. I will go down tomorrow and try and I wouldn't want to see it at any worse,
I've had with various parties is I mean, it's not on-site. I don't have a plan in my hand. You know, I get a phone call. I'm on the road. It's not always real clear to me. So I'll try and get a better handle on it.
If they if they don't know if they don't know whether or not they should be cutting that bank out, Jim, you should tell them you should take their keys because because we don't want them to cut that bank anymore unless they know for sure that they're supposed to be cutting into that bank or they're not supposed to be cutting into that bank.
And and don't And sounds like they're not supposed to be cutting into that bank.
They're not I know they're not supposed to be. I talked to Hank about it he said the same thing that wasn't supposed to be cut.
Okay, so I guess that is it on the gravel pit. I think, Jim, we have given you all the guidance that we can. It is kind of in your court going We will see where we are at the January meeting, but if nothing else, we should have a plan that we can agree with. And if we don't agree with it, they'll be back out working on it to make it into a plan that we do agree with.
Okay. I think I will touch base with Hank as well. Okay.
Let's see what his concerns I think that's all that we had that could have been of interest to you, Attorney Branch. Appreciate you, coming on on very short notice. You are muted so I can't hear you. Oh, okay. So glad to be of help and,
we'll stay on this. We certainly we've I think our firm has brought more enforcement actions than all the other law firms in Connecticut combined so we, we know how to do them and if that's what we have to do that's what we'll do. We'll hope we can avoid it but maybe not. All right Merry Christmas to all of you, happy holidays, happy Hanukkah to those of my persuasion
and happy new year. And I know attorney branch you said that you were penciled in on January 23 for our next meeting. Yes. I think we'll we'll need you at that one as well. Okay, I know that one is written in. Alright, take care all. Nice holiday season yourself. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Night. Okay. The last thing I wanted to go through with everybody here very quickly is the budget. This is our budget form. And so, I sort of owe this. Eric would like to have it by January 12, which is before our next meeting. So I thought we'd discuss it just a little bit tonight. And your board clerk wages, Eric will take care of that. All I have to do is let him know how many meetings we're going to have in the next year and how long they're going to be. I'm going to tell him 15 meetings, two hours a piece. So, that'll be that. Legal, professional, you know, so far we haven't used up too much of that budget, but I think we've got the potential to use it up quickly. And so, I would not want to go down on that any for next year. My sense is we'll leave that the same for that kind of support. That's my recommendation. Training, we haven't done any of that. We've talked about next March being the Connecticut Bar Association training. There is a cost associated with that. I'd like to have as many of the commission members attend that as possible. I think $500 was a
good step there. My sense is that we are just starting the state mandated commission training, and the state hasn't come out with what the training should be yet. And so I was hoping we would get some of that done in this budget cycle. It probably won't. But I'm thinking that we would bump up training to $750 for next year because there's going to be more training to meet the state mandate once they figure out what it is. Mapping, we put $300 in for that. It shows we've used $2.40. Jim, do you know what we've done with maps to use that money up?
No, I don't. I was going to say the lake maps, but those would have been, I think, the last fiscal year, but I'm not sure. Let's see. This is July 1.
Okay. Yeah, that would have the last fiscal year. Yeah, if you could pull the string on that, I know there's a couple of maps we want to make.
Yes, yeah, there's a few that I've been meaning to do. And I some of them are simple like the the lake maps I'm supposed to get on my heart. I have to do that. I assume that would come from from that line item. I mean, that's I think a $40 bill. But then there's a couple other maps we want to take care of one being the zoning map. Yep. So yeah, mean. Bump it up a few $100.
Yep. I okay. So well, I'll propose that we bump that up to $500 and and if you would pull the string, Jim, to just see what that $240 is,
I'd appreciate it. Do you want me to give explanation?
Yeah, that'd be a detailed one. Somebody's charging us, somebody's saying we spent $240 I don't know what we spent it on. No, I'm sorry. What I'm saying is
you're going to submit this budget, correct? Yep. So you're going have to have an explanation for any increase or decrease.
Yes, then if you want to send me some justification comments, I know we want a new zoning map and. Might be a couple other things that we had talked about.
Can do that. Believe I have this. I believe this was sent to me. If not, I can get it, I think. I can say I can get it from the finance department, but there's nobody really in there. Don't need it tonight. Not a big deal.
Was surprised at the number. So any other commission members have any comments on the proposed budget? Hearing none, I make a motion to approve next year's budget with legal and professional being the same, training being increased to $750 mapping being increased to $500 I'll second that.
I heard a couple of people, but we'll say Steve Nelson seconded. Any other discussion on the budget? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye.
Steve? Aye. Leigh Ann? Aye. I vote aye as well. Motion passes five-zero-zero. So, the next couple of items we can go through pretty quickly. And I think there might be a couple of people holding on for public speak, so hopefully we'll get there quickly to accommodate them without too much further delay at this point. There's probably a way I could have done that better, but I'm not aware of it right this minute. Next item up is the approval of the minutes from our regular meeting, November 21. And I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the planning and zoning regular meeting, Monday, November 21. Second. Okay, Scott, seconds. Thank you. Any comments? Yes, just Leanne, I had a few. Yep, go ahead, Leanne.
On page one under A, there's an E on the end of Chris Bell's name, which I don't think is how he spells it. Think it's just B E L L. Yep. I agree.
And then further down the sentence, it starts with Jim Halsey, etcetera. We'll follow-up with Chris Bell. There's an r missing from Chris. Yep.
And also on this page, had a question. It's not necessarily a correction. Going back to the sentence that starts a remediation order that incorporates compliance with the approved grading plan that will also be attached to the land records will be sent by Jim Halsey. It doesn't say to whom. I assume it was to Mr. Genovese, but if that's correct, could we add that so we know who was supposed to have been the recipient of that?
Is that the intent or was it to be filed? I don't see what the exact section you're referring to. So I was directed to send it and file it. And I did both. I did not post it. Yeah, can't get that to you that
think Leanne, if we change the word sent to file, that would get the intent we're looking for.
Okay, because the intent was for it to be filed on the land records, right? Yes, yep. And that was done? Correct.
Okay. And then on page two, near the top under letter letter c, the sentence that says attorney Mark Brandt to Jim Halsey do not publish illegal notice of the vote. I think it should be a legal notice. Yes.
Yes, it was the notice of action, which is a legal notice.
But it's not illegal. You're doing good, Leigh Ann. What else you got?
Right in the middle of the page, Jed Larson motions to modify the initial motion to include accepting I think it should be a it's the same pronunciation. Accepting, a c c e p t I n g. Yep. And just one more on the last page under number 10. Public speak is spelled with two Es. Okay. Okay. And I guess that's it.
Got all those, Carol Anne? Any other comments on the meeting minutes? I did have a couple in under the heading, it says public hearing minutes motions. I think we didn't have a public hearing. That was a regular meeting. And then on line one, Jed Larson called the public hearing to order should be the meeting to order. And then at the bottom of the page, it is part of the boilerplate on all of them. It says public hearing and regular meeting motions minutes. Cross out public hearing and it should be regular meeting minutes and motions. That is on each of the pages there.
Okay, I will take care of that. And I had
no other comments on that. Any other Commission members have any comments?
I've got one Jed on the top of page four where it says Jim Halsey will look into Steve Nelson's concern regarding Center Street property has a big drop off. We should probably specify which Center Street property and the fact is that it's a demolition site and it's a drop off into the foundation so it's a safety issue. Yes. So The street number is 12. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. And I am on that slowly.
So, to finish the thought there, has a big drop off into the foundation?
Yeah, I mean, they should either put a fence around it or at least mark it off.
No, I agree with you and I agree with completing the thought there. Okay, anything else? Hearing no further comments, I'll call for a vote to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Steve? Aye. Leigh Ann? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion to approve the minutes as amended passes five-zero-zero. Next item is correspondence. Jim, anything there? No. Okay. Administrative reports, Jim?
Yes. Enforcement actions. I'm working on a complaint regarding legal home occupation on Merritt Valley Road. Letter went out, and I have some direction to provide the property owner. Long Hill Road is a long standing issue. That's the greenhouse on the the corner of Bear Swap in Long Hill with the intersection there. I had sent a letter to Dennis O'Brien to see where to go from from here. I've sent them, you know, basically as far as I know, we're they're incurring a fine daily a daily fine. I forget what it is, but. I have seen no activity there at all. I have not gotten a response. Dennis, I know is away for a little bit, so I'm hoping by next week maybe they'll get back to me and see where we go from there. That's someone living in a trailer, Jim?
No. I I look. That's the the greenhouse that that has been under under construction for a year, year and a half, The remodeling. Long Hill Road.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got that house. Trailers do have working on
one at Barnett's property on Route 6. I believe it's resolved. I am gonna follow-up on that. That was some. People living in a trailer behind the house. It was kind of complicated, and I have two complaints. One of property at Times Farm that bought a trailer and one on Bear Swamp, and I'm trying to ascertain if they actually are being don't want to send a letter out until I have a better idea as to whether they are actual or whether I can say that I've seen the activity.
Have you been up to see that one? Bear Swamp? Yes. It looks like somebody's living there, right?
It does, but I couldn't tell for sure. Generally what I do is I try and go by in the morning. I I think I I mean if I can't figure it out, I'll send a letter out and and just feel it out. I I didn't see how they got in and out of that door, though. But they have plastic all around it. Mhmm. Insulation.
Yeah. Those are two. Yeah. That's about it. I do have a couple other things. One is I did get an inquiry about from Dollar General about putting a fence along the property line. And I wanted to get a sense as to whether the Commission was looking for an actual application change for modification for the special permit or whether that would be an administrative decision. So it would run from Route 6 area, get back towards the rear of the property, to try to scrape to the tree farm. I think I think they just there was a lot of activity over there lately, and they just wanna keep their we keep it separate from the retail ambiance.
Jim, I would think that we would handle that in whatever manner we handle the gazebos over at the the network property. Is that what it is out there on Route 6? Yes.
Yeah. Yeah. And so was actual yeah. Okay. That that was a modification, but it would require an application.
Yep. And I did I can do that. I didn't get a chance to research that before the meeting. We were scrambling with other stuff.
If you recall, Mark Brass happened to be at that meeting. And you had there appeared to be two different interpretations. The regulations seem to let you do it two different ways, quite honestly. It could have been probably written better.
I'll call that up. I remember that. But I would think at our next meeting, we would have an application and then the Commission can decide whether we want to act on it or we want to turn that over to you for action. Okay. I can do that. Okay.
That was brought up by the neighbor during the application.
It was, yeah. It was, yep. And I think the neighbor is going to be excited to have a fence in there. He will be. Yep, that'll be good news for him.
Just want Do you someone actually bringing this up now? Say again, Leigh Ann? Is the neighbor the one who's bringing this forward again now? It wasn't clear to me.
No, the Stellar General was going to do it on their own initiative. Oh, okay. That's good. Yep. Speaking of the Dollar General, Jim, were you finished? With that one, do have one other issue.
Okay. I'm just gonna make one comment when you're through. I Go
just wanted to point something out. A gentleman contacted me regarding a cannabis packaging facility. And I just wanted to point out to the commission that the regulations in place speak about the sale of cannabis. And there's actually 14 different. Yeah, he said there were 14 different licenses under the that the state has micro. Growing or something. I'm not sure. But various things that pointing that out. And I indicated that I believe that he would I mean, could do it under our existing regulations in an industrial area by way of a special permit. I'm just pointing out that regulation that's in place is simply the way I read it anyway, it's simply sales. It uses the term establishment.
We do not define establishment. I know the statutes define it in various regulations. So I'm not aware that would come into play here. Just I'm just pointing it out, just sort of, I mean, if they ever did move forward, just I actually would like also to look at look at this, what was passed by the legislature and see what might be coming down the road. I mean, instance, I kind of wonder whether it would fall under agriculture. But you're talking about a building, growing cannabis in a building, I would assume.
When we talked about the regulation and we did that in support of the Board of Selectmen resolution, but I figured you're either selling it or growing it. I didn't think, never considered a separate thing for packaging it. I'll have to go back and take a look. I'm not sure it's I'm not saying it's a big issue. Just wanted to try it out. Probably not. I just didn't even consider that as a possibility.
I mean, I guess it could be hidden just like any other business. Special permit. That's all I have.
Okay. No, we did not have an inland wetlands meeting last month, so nothing to report from that. But finally gets us up to public speak. Thank you for being patient with the school superintendent. I don't know how to properly address you. There's different possibilities. So how should I address you? Salary's good. What's that? Salary's just fine. Okay, very good. I can make that work too. Thank you.
So I I have two things that I would like to say based on the agenda for for tonight's meeting. First of all, as, Mark said before he left, happy holidays. I know it's Hanukkah right now and Christmas for those who celebrate. So, the first thing, that I wanted to say was from the school side, as the superintendent, and on behalf of the board, we all want this community senior center to be built. That's not a question. This senior center five years ago, apparently, before I was there, before the principal that's there now and actually half of the board that's there now, it is a shame that there wasn't a way to make that work, with the school building. I think that that would have been perfect. I wasn't there. I don't know exactly what happened, but that that would definitely have been a good collaborative effort. I heard this commission speak when you were looking at, one of your agenda items, the Genovese plan, and I actually wrote down a couple of things that you guys said because they were they were very important to me. You said, we all need to understand. We have a lot of questions. We need to talk and not guess. We need to work collaboratively. And that's very admirable that you do do that with all of the things that come before the commission, but that's also what the school side is hoping that will be done with this senior center is to have everybody work collaboratively to make this happen. I know Anne Cremay mentioned 10 dash two twenty, and and you have a very
proficient attorney, Mark Brantz. And he said, oh, I'll you know, I'm gonna scroll and look that up because school law is different from all of the other factors to consider. So, I would really love to see the school side, the board of education really be able to work collaboratively and have the input from that valued elected board as well be considered during this process, because there is a lot of stuff that is different on the school side, which is why that law exists. I know in 1992, there was a building committee that had to look regarding the moving of a faulty septic on the school, and there was a a very, very unique committee that was put together that was representative of all of the commissions and the boards in town, and it was a job that was able to be completed, collaboratively. And I think that that could happen again. To Anne's concern about the removal of the word school from, that document, I saw a day care stay in there, golf course, horse riding, hospital, and I think that to eliminate the school as as as part of a representation in that document is concerning, because of the location. So I would just ask, you know, moving forward that
it be a collaborative effort. And I would hope that this would be something that not only planning and zoning, but the people of the town and the board of education and the board of selectmen consider, when they look at I know that Mark will give you guys his input with 10 Dash 220, but, that is my hopes moving forward into 2023 is that, this will be a collaboration, and it will be done to benefit not just the seniors, everybody in the community. So thank you.
And I do think the seniors are an asset, not a liability, we should be looking at how to, you know, capitalize on that. But I do want collaboration. The gravel pit is an example of what happens without collaboration, we saw that the last time we tried to put the senior center in the school wing, and I have no desire to repeat that. So, you very much for your comments. Thank you for attending. Thanks. Ms. Hutchinson. Catherine Hutchinson, you have anything for us tonight?
No, thank you. I appreciate your calling Attorney Branson. He is so knowledgeable and you're fortunate that he the town has retained him to represent her and help the Commission and its matters.
Well, I know you have been watching all of that closely and I felt that we needed to keep Attorney Brantz in the loop to help us make sure that the result is what we all hope it to be.
I think that was an excellent decision that you made. So,
thank you for attending. I think that's it from the public here tonight. Thank you for hanging in with us there to the end. I know you have to listen to a bunch of stuff that you probably not care to hear to get to that point. Next regularly scheduled meeting with the public hearing will be on January 23. That's moved off a week from what our normal date would be because of the Martin Luther King holiday. Carol Ann, good job on the minutes. I know we had some little knits in there, but for your first crack at getting the minutes out, I thought they were very nicely done and captured the essence of what we were talking about. And I'm happy to be on board. Thank you very much for your input. And just want to, you know, take a minute to wish all of you here happy holidays. And I really appreciate the fact that
you show up every meeting and participate and engage. You know, and we need to hear some opposing points of view amongst ourselves too. It shouldn't always be just, you know, we go off and do whatever we do. I like to hear both sides and I appreciate you bringing your concerns forward tonight because that will help us work collaboratively to get a good result on that, too. We all do want that. Any other comments before we adjourn?
I have one really quick thing. Yep, go ahead, Leanne. I just wanted to mention that I stopped in to shop at the Dollar General a couple of times, and I noticed that the stop sign, the exit onto Route 6, as opposed to the one on Lake Road, has an arrow that says do not turn left. So I don't remember that being discussed. I mean, I personally was concerned that, you know, that people should be directed to Lake Road anyway. And, you know, they said they had to have this entrance and egress onto Route 6 for their trailer truck. But anyway, I don't remember us specifically asking for this, but there is an arrow telling people not to turn left onto Route 6. Somebody did it while I was standing there watching anyway, but at least it's there as a direction telling people
not to do it. I saw that as well, and I know that, you know, when we were talking about it, we thought that was a better, you know, for the state to make that recommendation. I'm kind of like the fence. I'm surprised that the fence request is coming in, but I'm happy that it is. And I was happy to see that sign up saying right turn only going out on Route 6. I think that will be helpful in trying to make it just a little bit more safer than it otherwise might be. So, comment, Leanne. Anybody else? Going, going, happy holidays to you all.
I have one question for you, Jude. Yep. I've noticed on Long Hill, up near where Hendi comes in at 243 Long Hill Road, that abandoned house up there that's got a hole through the roof, it's for sale now as a lot instead of the house. The house is still there, but they're trying to sell as a lot. It's less than an acre. Could that be ever used to be built, a house be built on it when it's less than an acre?
So I will ask, I could probably answer it, but I might get it wrong. So I will ask Jim to respond to that question. Okay.
Yes. I wasn't aware that they were actually are you suggesting they would remove the house and rebuild? Is that what you're It sounds referring like it because the the real estate sign says lot for sale.
And when you look up the real estate listing online, it just talks about a lot. No mention that there's a house there. I did a house for free.
I thought I read the same thing, Ann, and I thought that they said that the house has to be removed. I read that listing also. Oh, so then that's
what can you do with less than an acre? You know, I don't I'm not aware of any requirement that they remove it. It is a lot. It's a lot that was approved by way of a subdivision back in 1993. Think I in fact got copy sent a copy of the. The plan, the subdivision plan to the realtor. And to chase it down and and send it out the The house was there when the subdivision was approved, so it was a little unusual. There's nothing wrong with it. But it must have complied with the regs at that time. It is a lot of record. And there's other lots house.
Oh, hey. So when you say less than an acre, it must have been I have to assume it was 40,000 square feet.
I mean, that The would listing was like 0.9 something acres.
Yeah, I mean, just because in 1993 it was 40,000. That's why 40,000 was minimum. There's a lot of lots that are exactly 40.
Well, instance, there was, know, the house burned down on Lake Road, something like 02/24 or something there. And, you know, the house has been knocked down now, but it's a fairly small lot. It's probably a half an acre lot. Somebody will buy it and build a house back at least to the size that was on there before.
But then I remember last year we wouldn't allow an accessory apartment to be built on a house, an existing house, an existing lot, because it was less than our minimum. So why was that?
That's because our regulations specifically specifies you've got to have a 60,000 square foot to put an accessory apartment in. Was going to talk about that a little bit tonight, but I didn't want the meeting to go any longer than it already is. We'll talk again. But you can build a house, you might be able to build an accessory apartment, and we're going to try and make it so that it's easier for people to build those accessory apartments. Okay.
Anybody else? Okay, hearing none, I make a motion to adjourn. Second.
Thank you, Steve. Call for vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Thank you. I can hear you, Scott. Yep. I said aye. Okay. Steve? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. That motion carries five-zero-zero. Everybody have a wonderful holiday season. Stay healthy. There's a lot of that bug going around and I look forward to seeing you all as we get started next year. Thank you very much for the support. Thank you. Good night. Thanks, Ted.